Facts of Evolution

If you want to know what the scientists know about evolution, then here it is.

An enormous breadth of information, assimilated, compressed, and congealed into an easily understood, visually irresistible presentation.

Facts Of Evolution (made by the Cassiopeia Project) has layer upon layer of evidence that makes common descent and macro-evolution inescapable.

Universal common descent is the concept that every living thing on earth is related to every other living thing on earth… genealogically, genetically related. All modern organisms are descended from one original species.

And while in its simplest form, there is a genetic, linear progression that branches and forms a tree-like pattern, Common Descent is NOT restricted to this linear pattern.

That is different species might recombine and generate hybrids; or genetic material may cross from symbiont to host; or perhaps by man’s own hand, genetic material may be implanted wholesale in another species.

None of this changes the fact that every living thing on earth is related to every other living thing on earth.

Along the way, many will applaud and many will object. But both reactions are inappropriate. Science as a discipline does not cheer for a given outcome of its experiments and investigations.

If it doesn't include a mention or give credit to god how can this be true? I can accept an all powerful spirit that has no beginning and no end... that makes sense... but evolution a rational but hard to believe step by step process of natural selection, reproduction, and genetics ... I just can't wrap my mind around that one... And the writers of the old or new testament NEVER EVER once mentioned bacteria, genetics, atoms, or DNA .... not once... you would think if it was true and important they would have mentioned it at least once.

Achems Razor

@Mr. Majestik:

Are you for real? or are you just trolling?

You think that your fairy tale of a book written in the bronze age would have a clue of any type of empirical science. et al:

Of course no mention, because the writers did not know! they just only came out of the Earth was flat scenario! That stuff you are reading, (Bibles) is not real!

CivEng

Interesting documentary... Good for those who don't know alot about biology and evolution, like myself

However, I don't understand why some documentaries insist on putting spacey x-files type music in the background.

now i dont think 1speed2racer7 is being sarcastic. i have seen another of his comments that was just mindless religious babbling.

Nature has a way of keeping species separate: Most hybrid organisms, such as mules or ligers, are sterile. The mechanisms behind this were unclear, but now scientists think they may have caught the genetic culprit in action.

Hoping to learn more about what keeps species apart--and how new species form--biologist Olivier Loudet of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research in Paris turned to the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana), a weed from the mustard family. Scientists sequenced the complete Arabidopsis genome in 2000, making genetic analysis relatively easy; and, with many populations growing throughout the world, thale cress has a wide range of genetic variety.

Loudet and colleagues sampled two populations of thale cress, from Poland and the Cape Verde Islands in the middle Atlantic Ocean. Immediately, they noticed a subtle genetic difference: One of two copies of the gene for the essential amino acid histidine is partially deleted in chromosome 5 of the island thale, and it is not expressed at all in chromosome 1 of the Polish thale. When these two genetic variants combined during breeding, 11% of the embryos died, the team reports in tomorrow's issue of Science. Other genetic combinations resulted in a measly thale cress with shorter-than-normal roots. The team chalks both problems up to a reduced supply of histidine.

Crossing 30 other variants of thale cress resulted in inviable offspring about one-fourth of the time. This means that evolution of a single gene can rapidly lead to differences within a species, says Loudet.

Evolutionary geneticist Leonie Moyle of Indiana University, Bloomington, says the results are "quite exciting" because this is the first clear example of genetically incompatible lineages within the same species.

news . sciencemag . org/sciencenow/2009/01/29-05 . html

plato

I don’t understand the nuances o genes , dna, etc, but I get the general idea…& the fact that DAN test can positively tell you If that baby—that you’ve been supporting—is yours, it’s in itself, a miracle of science & proof that this is not BS mumbo jumbo but something to take seriously…btw, I think that Mr. Majestik was just being sarcastic—if I’m not mistaken…

Robert Allen

Terrible! Terrible! Terrible!

1. In general, nearly impossible for a layperson to follow.

2. Paced too quickly for meaningful comprehension and too many terms and concepts left undefined or unexplained.

3. The section on genetics is a disaster, especially since it contains only a few concrete examples presented at the usual breakneck pace.

4. The "musical background" is merely a hindrance.

5. Obviously, the makers of this documentary did not take their intended audience into account.

6. I picked out this documentary to learn more about a topic which greatly interests me and my efforts were awarded with bewilderment and frustration.

In short, whoever who put this documentary together did not consider their intended audience AND THUS HAVE NOT DONE THEIR JOB.

1speed2racer7

@Epicurus religion aside, I am trying to figure out why people believe we evolved with apes from the same ancestor. You in no way helped me on this quest with your rambling about thale cress. Which I might add that your comment had nothing to do with the question. It is a simple question with a simple answer. They can't mate because.......

Robert Allen

@1speed2racer7.

First of all, mules (and hinnies) can mate, but for the most part cannot conceive.

For a clear explanation which alas this documentary failed to provide, Wikipedia has a fine article on mules which also explains how they fit into the evolutionary scheme.

Robert Allen

1speed2racer7.

It's not that "people believe." It's that scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that all life evolved from a common ancestor--and in this area, that's all that counts, not the ignorance of belief. It's a mystery why blind faith is treated with such admiration as opposed to the villification and opprobrium which it so deserves. This destructive predilection does not say much about mankind in general.

plato

Robert Allen, you’re a party pooper, a heckler…I said that I didn’t get the nuances—the fine details—but there’s not denying the power of the DNA test…do you agree? You just want some attention…ok, get close to the screen, I’m hugging you…hmmm…nice, isn’t it?

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

I have studied evolution in college and read about it on my own, but I found this documentary to be compelling because it puts everything in one very tight and precise argument backed up with easily understood terms and examples. I recommend it to everyone no matter what level of understanding and knowledge the viewer has.

P.S. I did not find the voice of the narrator to be a problem at all. Maybe some people did not like it because it lacked the emotional tone that so many others have in this area.

1speed2racer7

@Robert Allen I appreciate the answer. I agree, humans can mate and not concieve as well. I might have to check out Wikipedia. I would just think that if a donkey and horse mate(concieve) and bring forth a mule then, by evolution, the mule, being a new species, can mate(concieve) with a horse and bring forth something like a morse or a hule. Makes me wonder what new species would evolve if a human were to mate(concieve) with an ape. Would it be called a mape? Furthermore would this mape be able to reproduce a new species. You see, this evolution thing makes no sense to me.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

1speed2racer7, evolution does not make sense to a lot of people but it is real. The horse and donkey thing was covered by the documentary. Did you watch it?

1speed2racer7

@Lori no, I didn't watch the doc. Did it cover the human and ape thing as well? What does make sense to me is that we began as a one-celled organism and emerged from water. The same as apes, horses, donkeys, mules, and every other animal on the planet. The water is called amniotic fluid and after we are born our bodies, till the day we die, will continue to change allowing for the adaptation of our environment. In no way, shape, or form does this involve a change in species. Therefore although similar in design to apes we are not the same.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

1speed2racer7, do yourself a favor and watch the documentary and then post some comments. You will find this film easy to understand.

Charles B.

A documentary can sound very good without a counter argument. I was ready to believe the Egyptian pyramids were ancient power houses beeming X-rays into outspace to alien spaceships the other day! LOL. Well, almost.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Lewis, I am in South Korea and was considering a job offer in China. I never even gave Internet censorship a consideration. What a bummer. I hope you can find another way of viewing this documentary. I was just sore I could not see Hulu outside of the States. At least I am going back to the USA in December. I wish I could help you.

http://beijingvideostudio.com/ Lewis

Thanks Lori..BTW Your website blog is also blocked in China..That means you must be famous if the govt decides to block you. :>)

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

I am? Well I'll be...Thanks.

jono

@Robert Allen, don't agree I thought it was an excellent primer (apert from the voice lol)
@1speed2racer7 The doc pretty much explains everything, not sure if you are being obtuse or if you really are an IDer
@Lori George Alexander The voice wasnt because of the lack of emotion, it was the sing song effect of it that prompted my comment
@Epicurus Great example there.

iesika

@ 1speed2racer7

Horses and donkeys (and also humans and chimps) have different numbers of chromosomes, which are individual strands of DNA bundled up tightly. You need two copies of each chromosome, because they pair up and mix, then split during production of eggs and sperm. Horses and donkeys can each produce viable sperm, which combine to form a mule, but a mule does not have matching pairs of chromosomes and cannot make viable eggs and sperm.

As for why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps have 24, if we are so closely related (which we are) - our Chromosome 2 is extra, extra long, and for reasons difficult to explain simply without being able to show you a picture, very obviously the fusion of two of our ancestor's chromosomes. Do a search for human chromosome fusion if you'd like more info.

And...why are you commenting on a video you haven't watched?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

@1speed2racer7,

Watch the documentary.

mackenga

@1speed2racer7 - Sorry if I'm repeating something someone else has already said, was skimming the comments. I just wanted to correct you on one point: evolution doesn't say that if you breed two different species you get a new species. Mules are hybrids, not a new species. Speciation happens through the gradual accumulation of minor changes (mutations) by members of a divided population of the same species, until enough such changes have accumulated that it's no longer possible for the two populations to breed if they meet again. Which of the two is the new species and which is the continuation of the old one is of course a moot point; it's a matter of interpretation (it's possible that either group could successfully breed with their common ancestor, which makes them still the same species as their common ancestor, but different species from each other :) ).

It's interesting stuff. If you're looking for an answer as to whether we evolved from apes, here's a small steer in the right direction: we *are* apes. As well as being members of the species homo sapiens sapiens, we are still members of the broader group 'great apes'.

WTC7

Physical evolution is such an obvious process, given so much evidence of it, that it would be simply silly to deny it.

My problem is where does the Mind fit into all this...

mindboggling

so what really boggles my mind is everything begins as a single cell that doubles and so on and so on. so what is it that makes this cell into a bird or rat or human or whatever. in the beginning earth was a ball of magma wen a massive rock collide creating the moon and eventually liquid water appeared. it makes sense to think all life is from 1 thing. but where did the first cell come from? another meteor from space? if so wer did the cell on that rock come from? so is it radiation from space that causes evolution?? mutations and so on? is god a creation of life or life a creation of god? is each cell a miniscule galaxy? what will happen wen we find other life in the universe thats really what i wanna know, bring some alien microbes to earth and lets see wat happens

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Be careful what you wish for. The first "Goldilocks" planet has been discovered.

I don't think the film said everything started from one single cell, but I understand scientists have found a meteor they think is from Mars that has fossils of a primitive sort. Maybe life is not so unique as all that.

Epicurus

All life on Earth evolved from a single-celled organism that lived roughly 3.5 billion years ago, a new study seems to confirm.

The study supports the widely held "universal common ancestor" theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.

Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.

The domains are bacteria, bacteria-like microbes called Archaea, and eukaryotes, the group that includes plants and other multicellular species, such as humans.

The "best competing multiple ancestry hypothesis" has one species giving rise to bacteria and one giving rise to Archaea and eukaryotes, said Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

But, based on the new analysis, the odds of that are "just astronomically enormous," he said. "The number's so big, it's kind of silly to say it"—1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

Theobald also tested the creationist idea that humans arose in their current form and have no evolutionary ancestors.

The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

(As of publication time, requests for interviews with several creationist scientists had been either declined or unanswered.)

All species in all three domains share 23 universal proteins, though the proteins' DNA sequences—instructions written in the As, Cs, Gs, and Ts of DNA bases—differ slightly among the three domains.

The 23 universal proteins perform fundamental cellular activities, such as DNA replication and the translation of DNA into proteins, and are crucial to the survival of all known life-forms—from the smallest microbes to blue whales.

A universal common ancestor is generally assumed to be the reason the 23 proteins are as similar as they are, Theobald said.

That's because, if the original protein set was the same for all creatures, a relatively small number of mutations would have been needed to arrive at the modern proteins, he said. If life arose from multiple species—each with a different set of proteins—many more mutations would have been required.

But Theobald hoped to go beyond conventional wisdom.

"What I wanted to do was not make the assumption that similar traits imply a shared ancestry ... because we know that's not always true," Theobald said.

"For instance, you could get similarities that are not due to common ancestry but that are due to natural selection"—that is, when environmental forces, such as predators or climate, result in certain mutations taking hold, such as claws or thicker fur.

Biologists call the independent development of similar traits in different lineages "convergent evolution." The wings of bats, birds, and insects are prime examples: They perform similar functions but evolved independently of one another.

But it's highly unlikely that the protein groups would have independently evolved into such similar DNA sequences, according to the new study, to be published tomorrow in the journal Nature.

"I asked, What's the probability that I would see a human DNA polymerase [protein] sequence and another protein with an E. coli DNA polymerase sequence?" he explained.

"It turns out that probability is much higher if you use the hypothesis that [humans and E. coli] are actually related."

David Penny, an evolutionary biologist at Massey University in New Zealand, called the grand scope of Theobald's study "bold."

Penny had been part of a similar, but more narrowly focused, study in the 1980s. His team had looked at shared proteins in mammals and concluded that different mammalian species are likely descended from a common ancestor.

Testing the theory of universal common ancestry is important, because biologists should question their major tenets just as scientists in other fields do, said Penny, who wasn't part of the new study.

Epicurus, I don't know why I bother with you around. You are one smart person. Thank you for making it very clear. I think I goofed it up somewhat.

Charles B.

Epic: Your obviously genious in a foolish sort of way when you say: “It turns out that probability is much higher if you use the hypothesis that [humans and E. coli] are actually related.”

Before you make germs and people the distant offspring of one very ancient mold cell that came about by accidental chemical interactions, wouldn't it also be at least possible that similar DNA and its function indicates a common Creator using a winning design rather than a common ancestry?

The zeros after the 1 needed to verify evolution are quite high, are they not? That takes a lot more "faith" than I have believing in the One that I choose to follow (along with a billion or so others). Roughly.

I doubt we'll ever quite see eye to eye.

I was thinking about psychology also for a master's degree. I might need to do something in education for my masters, if I'm wise, but I do so also like science.

Randy

Yes, Lori, Epicurus is the man, I have learned much from him.

Actually, we have learned much from each other! We kinda "hang" together because we are "cool" like that...

(Please say that is true, Epicurus! We's pals, right?)

LOL!

If only I could eat your young, fresh brain, thereby gaining all of your knowledge...

BRAINS!!! (Zombies... you know Hallowe'en is coming...)

capricious

hahahaha just briefly reading the comments before I even clicked play, I *knew* it had to be a CassioPlea production... that guy definitely is too monotone and hypnotic sounding...

Great for sleeping to tho and that's what I plan on doing :)

Thank you still CassioPlea -- if you read this. Your work is awesome and I have been a long time subscriber.

--YourBrainOnReligion

Achems Razor

"What I cannot understand, is how we can understand at all!"

"Albert Einstein."

Richard

The special effects are pretty hilarious and the narrator doesn't seem very comfortable with what he's doing but it's still a good documentary.

mankind

@lori george alexander,

you said they found the first goldilocks planet but sadly its probably like 100 , or 1000 or 1000000 light years away right. It'll probably be like 1000 years b4 we came up with tech. to even have a chance to travel that far, humans might just get wiped out by then. so its i don't think any person will get the chance. really with all the deadly s@#$ in space its a wonder any life can survive anywhere. at any given moment even earth could get wiped out in a cuple seconds from a huge list of catastrophic events. scientists like to say were safe but they dont really no either , the vastness of space is truly the mind boggling thing. earth is just a tiny rock with a few parasites crawling around on it (us lol).

john

@Charles B...why do you always post the same sh@t when it comes to the docs on evolution, i guess it must be your upbringing that makes you blind to the obvious truth of evolution.we did not evolve from mold, mold and we are cousins as we share a common ancestor..go back to home schooling your kids in your bronze age fables..oh i get so mad when i read your posts, may god strike you down..oh hang on there isnt one.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Mankind, you missed the whole point. If you found one, there are others. They also found it around a red dwarf sun and that was something scientists did not expect to find. You remind me of my aunt who gave me two scarfs for my birthday, a red one and a pink one. When I wore the pink one, she got mad and asked what was wrong with the red one. You aren't Uncle Rex are you?

mankind

well clearly there is life out there ive always believed that there is im just saying its beyond our puny reach is all . and its too bad becuz u can only imagine wat we cud learn from alien civilizations , they cud cure all our diseases , new technology and so on . also yes it is i uncle rex....wear the dam red scarf!!!!

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Ah yes, Uncle Rex, you never did learn to spell. Say hello to everyone but don't drink too much lemonade. Yes, I will wear the damn red scarf.

Corey

Why do people have these huge rage boners over religion and faith?

I assume it is because people believe that it causes war and murder and such. Honestly though if the world was rid of religion, do you think that the world would be a better place? I don't.

If there was no religion, people would fight over money. If there was no money, people would fight over land. If there was no land people would fight over taco's.

If you've failed to understand where I'm going with this then what I'm saying is that no matter what people believe there will always be war and murder.

People are going to kill each other over stupid c@#$ until the end of time. There's no changing it.

However I also assume that this isn't the only reason people hate it. It's obvious that people feel the need to belittle the views of others because they're "stupid", "unreasonable" or because there's no evidence to support it.

We need to stop relating science with faith. Science is a "matter-of-fact" way of looking at things where as faith is a personal, spiritual belief. Also science doesn't disprove a creator, nor does evolution.

Arguing about who's right won't solve anything. If believing when you die nothing happens makes you feel happy, then believe that. If believing you'll walk in the Kingdom of Heaven with God makes you feel happy, believe that. Or if you believe that you'll reincarnate into something else, believe it. If they're not your views why the f*** do you care?

It seems like it's more about being right and proving the others wrong than it is about actually understanding why and how we're here.

When it gets to this: "may god strike you down... oh wait there isnt one" or "Religee's drive me bonkers" it becomes ridiculous and childish. I know it sucks when people have different beliefs and values, and it especially sucks when they talk about them on a public board, but really there's no need to insult or stereotype people.

I'm all for talking about beliefs and why we believe them, but it's impossible to do that here and in most other places because people have these predeterminations about certain faiths. "Wow, you believe in god? That's gay. You should shut up now because that's not what I believe and I was told by a bunch of smart people that your way of thinking is stupid 'cause it's not backed up by evidence I don't understand."

I know that this is a bit off topic, but since the doc was about evolution it was bound to go off topic with people spewing some religious hate.

If you don't agree with what I've said here, I don't care. If you've got some sort of rebuttle I'd love to hear it. However this isn't supposed to start an argument. It's just another one of those crazy beliefs people have.

Either way I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. Besides the obvious sarcasm sprinkled throughout this piece, I do believe it to be rational and I don't see how you could fully disagree.

scorpyan

@Mr. Majestik- said
"I just can’t wrap my mind around that one… And the writers of the old or new testament NEVER EVER once mentioned bacteria, genetics, atoms, or DNA …. not once… you would think if it was true and important they would have mentioned it at least once."

This tells us that the writers of the bible, either lied, misunderstood what god was telling them to write, or they were writing a book of fiction to control other men.

While evolution can be proven by scientific standards, it can not disprove god, so there is always the idea that god used evolution as a way to create us, and the writer's of the bible got it wrong, because well. GOD THE ALMIGHTY NEVER SPOKE TO THEM.

If what the bible says is true, and god created us in his image, that would mean, say bacteria really could be god perhaps and we were created in that image, since they have proved we were all created of the same stuff here on earth, and all life evolved from bacteria(as far as they can trace) Wow, yeah I see how that concept could be hard for people who put faith in the bible. I however find it hard to put my faith in some writings by men, many years after he events claimed, those of which have been altered and changed, over and over with no good reason to back it up.

Open your mind that evolution does not disprove that a higher life-form exists, however it does tear down the validity of the bible and many religions. God could be any form. he may or may not exist.
As the saying goes, god created man, and man created religion to control (and destroy) other men.

scorpyan

@1speed2racer7

Organisms must have an even number of chromosomes to replicate properly. 62+64 gets a mule with 63. Mules can mate and produce offspring very rarely.
Sometimes hybrids aren't viable for a vast number of reasons.
Its easy to see clear examples of natural selection, if you research some of the vegetables you eat. It's like the cukeamelon that turned up in my garden had no viable seeds, but was really yummy. I've created hybrids on many plants, then let them do their own thing year after year, and usually they turn into a stable variety that does not even resemble the original hybrid or parent. Most plants I grow, readily hybrid together naturally, and do reproduce viable offspring. It is not until a random mutation occurs in the chromosomes that makes that variety unable to breed with its parent plant. Most hybrid seeds today, are engineered by the companies to not reproduce any offspring, and its easily done with the knowledge of dna.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Scorpyan, The Bible is a great book of Hebrew mythology. It was never meant to be a book of science. Even the early writers of Christianity knew that.

Robert Allen

To Lori George Alexander

You're right--the Bible was never meant to be a book of science, but it is more than just Hebrew mythology--there's probably Babylonian, Sumerian, Greek and even Japanese mythology mixed in as well.

You're also right that the early Christian writers knew that--look at St. Augustine who, among others in the mainstream at that time (ca. 100 AD), cautioned against a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially of Genesis. And this view remained the orthodox one for 1,500 years in Christian Europe and the Near East. TODAY'S BIBLICAL LITERALISM IS A PRODUCT OF MODERN TIMES AND AN AMERICAN INVENTION which as you might suspect, came out of the deep south.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Robert Allen, I remember being talked into a lesson by Jehovah Witnesses to read with them, the book of Geneses. I started to read that book which I had not done for years and saw that it is actually three books or more jammed together. The Bible is great in that it is old but it is other books thrown into it. Then the scribes added a few things.

I agree with your post that the Biblical literalism is basically a new train of thought. I remember reading a scholar who thought that English history should come out of Shakespeare which would be wrong too although I love Shakespeare's plays. I think some people are always looking for a way to get out of thinking and so they latch onto a way of interpreting "truth" by religiously following one literary form or another instead of looking at history through a multifaceted lens.

scorpyan

@Lori George Alexander

Yes, than kyou, that it exactly the point. So many people, present it to you as fact, and merely state, that we are instructed to take it as fact by way of faith. The fact that so many people, want to discredit or prove the way they believe or think is true, by a book based of mythology, is a whole separate science study in its own. I do agree, that certain real events can be found outlined in the bible, as science have attempted to prove that these stories could have happened and been recorded. But I find it ironic that people who put their faith in the bible often have no belief in science whatsoever, yet when they are ill, they turn to the same science they are trying to prove wrong.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Scorpyan, I had a discussion with those same Jehovah Witnesses. They were trying to convince me on the reality of a future world in which the devil would be destroyed and "the lamb would lie with the lion". I said that it is impossible that the earth will last forever and even the core is now beginning to cool. Then I realized that in order to believe in the fairy tales of all of these future events, they could not believe in what science has discovered. One believer said that they could not tell people just to believe in Jehovah, they had to have other things to believe in, to help them forget their troubles and not be depressed about their lives. I understood for the first time that if you believe in those stories of the rapture and other such things you could not believe in rational science. Talk about putting yourself in a box.

When I was a kid, I loved Greek mythology and wish we went into that instead of Christianity. It is a lot more fun to read. When you put your faith in man-made beliefs such as a religion or a person such as the Pope or Jim Jones you are giving up your responsibility for finding out your own answers because you don't trust yourself for finding things out for yourself. These are people with very low levels of self-esteem and confidence who can't believe they know the truth. It isn't faith, its fear of oneself.

1speed2racer7

@scorpyan Do you think that it is good for mankind for companies to eliminate the ability for us to produce our own food?

QueenBee

@Lori: ....(faintly) you...talked...to Jehova's Witnesses?

(I'm fascinated by the number of JW's who get to be 'reborn' during their Rapture, iirc it's something like 144,000 or so. Which leaves out how many billions of others? I wonder why they bother to proselytize any more, surely they've met their quota by now. And yet they knock on doors.)

This documentary seems to be very instructive (like something you'd find in a classroom. Very clear explanations, I thought.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

QueenBee, I am a writer so I am open to everything well almost everything. The 144,000 people are the rulers of us mortals and the rest of us have the chance to be ruled by them in this new world. I am not sure how they got to be so special but since it flies in the face of everything I believe in I just let it go in one ear and out the other. It is in the Bible though.

I am fascinated by all of the variations of Christians who are convinced they are the only ones who are not going to Hell although to be fair Jehovah Witnesses, to their credit, do not believe in the existence of Hell. The Phelps Family now before the US Supreme Court and the subject of a documentary on the web site, "The Most Hated Family in America", make that claim too.

You are right in that the documentary is very clear in explaining evolution to all even the most unenlightened of us.

john

@ corey..the reason i think the world would be MUCH better off without religon is twofold, first it is devisive and separates we human beings from each other by banding us into imaginary groups, do you think there would be trouble in the middle east if there was no religon, there would be no fighting over the so called promised land ( formed by the guilty allies after ww2 by stealing palestinian land) by two variations of abrahamic faiths with a third stepping in to try and stop or maybe bring about armaggedon depending on your views on american foreign policy and the infighting in islam would be gone, the systematic raping of children by roman catholic priests would not have happened, to inquisition would not have happened, need i go on..they are death cults and all cant wait to meet their maker and possibly take us all with them. the second and most important to me is that it is a lie.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

John, you talk as if religion exists separate from humankind but it is mankind (sexual id intended) who made it all up. Mankind is not the servant of religion but quite the opposite. Whether or not God or something beyond the senses exist really does not matter as religion was created to bash one's neighbor over the head. I know the creed says different but no one really pays much attention to that except for a few heretics.

The ImPoster

@john
I have to agree with lori all religions are not lies(a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth). In fact at worst i can only say your offending religious texts are semi-fiction or fictions.

@lori
How are you so sure religion was created to bash someone over the head. I have never found a study that examined any spiritual followings to be a more constructive or destructive psychological motivator. I do agree though some religions make outrageous claims but this goes back down to "burden of proof" where the burden of proof is required by both parts on all disputes. Creator says because it is. If your prosecuting a idea its your responsibility to find proof. This also works the other way of course...

@"Militant Atheists"
Do you honestly think spirituality makes someone do bad things. If so I'd be interested to see your attack against Buddhism... How are they plotting control and brainwashing of the world.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

The ImPoster, The proof is in the pudding, I guess; but you bring up an interesting point. I have found throughout history that mankind create social institutions to give validity to the way society and culture governs or controls their group or as I said hits each other over the head if you are not a law abiding member. I know people don't like Marx and Engle but they were good social scientists and made some very good points that have been backed by many studies and books through the years.

I also think that there are people out there that require in their lives something, someone to tell them what they should believe in. They are dying to give away their responsibility away to anyone or anything so they don't have to find their own answers thus religion fills this function. People as sheep is so commonplace that I would hate to find the proof of this since this has been related to by different writers for many, many years. The book "Party of One" by Anneli Rufus a book about loners has a picture on its cover of one sheep and most people "get it" that loners don't follow the dictates of the crowd.

( I am not including the existence of the Eternal or a Higher Power because I don't think it has anything to do with religion. I also don't believe if one does not have a belief in a religion one is condemned to a eternity of burning in Hell. It is a way for those who make a living in a religion to make sure they have converts and a steady supply of money in the coffers and the culture people they can manage and control. )

ez2b12

@ the imposter

Yes spirituality causes bad things to happen, for several different reasons. Most often it requires faith, faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and is destructive to our existence. Why, becuase it teaches us from the time we are young to follow our misguided intuitions instead of reason. Spirituality also tends to elevate itself to be the most important thing in ones life, taking precedence over things that are less fantastic and mysteriouse but more relevant to maintaining life.

Not to long ago evangelical christians(the gang i love to hate) in the United States were asked what was more important- the economy or making sure we act in accordance with thier Gods will. Of course they chose thier gods will over politics, economics, social concerns, justice- need I say more? Religion also forces many to disbelieve truths that are necessary for us advancement in the fields of science and medicine. When we have tons of evidence to the contrary these people cling to thier religiouse teachings and turn thier backs on the truth, therefore crippling scientific advancement and understanding of the natural world. Yes religion is destructive in that it teaches lies and blinds people to the actuall truths we must deal with in order to advance as a species.

I would have no issues with religion if it did not interfere with politics and societies conceptions of morality which in turn interfere with the rights of the individual and nation as a whole. The reason you do not hear of attacks against the Buddhist religion because it is very inclusive and does not dictate moral absolutes to the world, in fact I have heard a Buddhist monk say that he did not see anything wrong with an atheist practicing Buddhism in his monistary- he said he invited them to come in fact no matter what they believed or did not believe. Now if they begin to interfere with public or foreign policy or start jamming thier belief system down others throats at the end of a sword or rifle- I will complain about them as well. A lot of theologians do not see Buddhism as a religion at all, more like a life style.

Just because you are not ready to let go of a outdated and destructive system of oppression and deciet doesn't mean the rest of the world feels the same. More and more people are seeing the damage inflicted by absolute belief systems, based on nothing but conjecture and intuition. This does not single out one religion and absolve the rest, all religion is bad in my opinion. I feel it had its uses in the beginnings of societies evolution and is evidently a product of human nature. But if we do not shed it I fear one day soon we may find it's too late to lose the weight we used to need to throw around. We must understand what is, not what we want to be or think should be. We must be willing to understand and tolerate differences, not to convert or slay those that oppose us. We must accept scientifically established truths, not cling to idyllic interpretations of reality. Most of all we must realize thier will be no eternal reward for wasting the dawn. We have one chance to get it right, one chance to learn, live, love, and experience- do not pollute that one chance with ecclesiastical fear please, I beg you.

john

@ imposter

billions of people made to feel dirty and sinfull without cause is more harm than any other work of fiction. its a lie ALL of it pure and simple, time for the human race to look ahead instead of back.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

ez2b12
If I may join in your answer to the Imposter, I don't see a problem with a belief in a Higher Power or the Tao or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. When I am pressed to name a religion, I usually say I am a Buddhist since I do read in that religion. I have a very strong belief in spiritual matters however what someone else believes is simply none of my business. I do agree with many of the things you say about religion.

A while back, I tended to dislike the Christian religion until I read Thomas Merton and Joseph Campbell and others. Now I don't. I just think some use religion as a battering ram. Heavens even some Buddhists can act like Fundamentalists.

The only person I have any control over is myself. I try very hard not to spread any more anger and hostility than there is out there already although being human I am sure I fail in this regard. I have my own ideas of what will happen to me once I reach the end of the line (all of the pasta I can eat?)but I am not going to bore you and try and convert you to any particular point of view since we all get there in the end.

The ImPoster

@Lori
Yea, Marx was a brilliant political theorist. I don't support all of communism's ideas but his first line of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Pretty much sums up what the real problem in society is imo; just gets misdirected at political wims. (Godwin's Law demands me to stop here). I agree and think this should apply to everyone's thoughts "The only person I have any control over is myself. I try very hard not to spread any more anger and hostility than there is out there already although being human I am sure I fail"

@ez2b12
You say faith is bad; i say its necessary to advance... For instance i have "faith" The Big Bang had a period of hyper-inflation that caused hyper expansion then slowed down to a slower rate of expansion when it cooled. I have less "faith" that the universe was always a steady state. Are either one right. Who knows evidence points to big bang but might be steady state at a later time... its simply the amount of evidence available that makes science work. Lets muse that these figures are accurate... Christianity: 2 billion - Islam: 1.3 billion - Hinduism: 900 million - Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million - Buddhism: 360 million. For sake of discussion we must remove Hinduism too since "a specific belief about God or gods is not considered one of the essentials" and "The ultimate goal of all Hindus is release (moksha) from the cycle of rebirth (samsara)." If you have a reason to include them though please jest. This leaves Christianity and Islam... Christianity is simply at fault for taking biblical text to literally; the US is to blame for the start of that. Though i contest that them being involved in political things to point of corruption of system is blasphemy; unless its the next major conspiracy. Lets consider US, Europe and China being world powers(first two for GDP and third for population and economic power). Chinese are mostly Buddhist or Taoist and their scholars are better then ours to define religion as "cultural practices" or "thought systems". So they can be unlisted and taken out since their religions don't clash into political sphere. Next Europe(self boasted secular state) where according to Eurobarometer Poll 2005 52% of the citizens of EU member states state that they believe in a god, 27% believe in spirit or life a life force while 18% do not believe , and 3% declined to answer. I'm sure after Dawkins parade these numbers have shifted more. I also don't find it threatening enough to demand action since democracy is a "majority" based system. Islam and Christianity is dominate there; since their text is almost the same and they don't take it as literally also leads me to find it nonthreatening to point of no action. Which comes to good old US where we have "separation of church and state" in theory it works... Until political agendas come into play; this is merely a case of how can i get the most votes... Which we all know just because something is said doesn't mean it will get done. The separation of church and state though leads me to find it politically irrelevant... Unless you propose separation of religion and political election; I could swing with that. Now for the socially destructive we can set a date like 1990 and cite references back and forth about good and bad effects of Christianity and Islamic incidences if you like... but i fear that would be a never ending cycle. If you wish to go here we can Buuuuut I'm more interested in that distorting "conceptions of morality"... If you can point to the values and ethics section or at least where science has taken the time from "advancing the species" to define what standards we should live by as a society; to reach optimal harmony with nature and each other. Or is right and wrong merely a figment of our imagination also... would explain why corporations are some of the richest country's on earth. I'm interested to read Sam Harris The Moral Landscape soon though. Dawkins backed him so yea sure it will be biased but thought provoking...

@john
So well thought out how did you amass such a knowledge of 5.5ish billion people (religious) views of a piece of cultures influence on them. Now looking ahead instead of back i can agree on... Religions a problem for society you say... whats ahead of that since society will eventually fix that itself without interference. After all "militant atheists" are starting it... So i "believe" ethics dictates they justify the action. Course this leads into the un-militarized land of anti-realist vs realists... There you got something you can start. Since even without religion we have to decide; do we decide by what we can observe only... or can we question what we cannot prove extensively yet. This dose matter to since we must figure out where science should be directed for the best outcomes; which means you have to choose where labor and resources are invested.

@"Militant Atheists"
The reason i defend spiritual people of all faiths is because i can understand the culture and beliefs of people i don't know; I can't "cherry-pick" religions because a few radical people understand the Leader, Follower, and Situation model. A person could manipulate 10 local people to blow up a building in the name of democracy... Doesn't mean they should or would but they can. This is why i promote understanding over unacceptable; creates less radicals i figure.

@Everyone
Ill try to shorten posts. Articulating expansive ideas over the internet takes a lot of words to put it mildly though.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

The ImPoster, I don't see how your aside to me would invoke "The Godwin's Law", but what do I know? Friedrich Engels was a great intellect on his own and is often overshadowed by Marx. Any discussion of him would never invoke Nazis or anything else.

The ImPoster

@Lori
I just used Godwin's Law so any view i express doesn't get compared to Nazis or Hitler eventually; since i said parts of communism work and agreed with the opening line of The Communist Manifesto. "Subliminal text messaging if you will"; I figure people see that and google it if they don't know what it is. Alas though i must admit being a common US citizen i have not versed myself in the literature of Friedrich's solitary work other then a few Marx tidbits. You know cold war propaganda... down with communism!! That's earliest sociopolitical memory's of mine. If there is something i should investigate you recommend though do direct me. ;-D

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

The ImPoster, I don't know where you are or what nationality you are or your educational background but you might be surprised at Friedrich Engels and his intellectual achievements. Look him up on the Internet or if you are in the States, his work might be in your local library. Alas, I am not so lucky at least not at the present moment. I have read him and he impressed me when I first read him many years ago. If you are in England, his work is well represented in the British Museum and other libraries in the UK.

ez2b12

@ The imposter

You said: "You say faith is bad; i say its necessary to advance… For instance i have “faith” The Big Bang had a period of hyper-inflation that caused hyper expansion then slowed down to a slower rate of expansion when it cooled."

Yes, faith that is left open to further evidence or questioning is not a bad thing necessarily and may be needed in order to advance to the next question. But surely you jest if you are suggesting this to be the faith religiouse people cling to. They do not leave it open to further evidence or questioning at all, the accept their belief and never look back, how can this be seen as productive. Besides if I really went into the world history of religion and how it has directly and indirectly affected politics, economics, individual freedoms and rights, nationality, wars, etc., etc. we would be here all day.

Can you imagine how different the world would be if the Jewish and Palestinian peoples had not set the intire middle eastern region in a state of constant war and fear? If Dark age Europe had not of persecuted the Jew. How differently the enlightenment and scientific revolutions would have taken place if not for the interferance christianity? These are major factors in the east and west being what it is today, study western civics if you do not believe me.

You say that science has never defined a set of morality or rules we should live by, thats right and a good thing. We do not need science or religion to tell us what is right or wrong, nor do we need some list of acceptable parameters for behavior dictated us by some imaginary god which in the end was just another politically minded group of men. Each of us knows what is wrong in our hearts, and if we do not that is what the democratically elected leaders are here for. To propose acceptable practices and behaviors and let us the citizens then ratify what we like and throw out what we do not.

Whether you guys like it or not thier is much more to worry about than just what happens after we die. What about while we are alive, the only thing that really matters in the end. Like i stated earlier these religiouse ideals become the most important thing in these peoples lifes, they sit around and day dream of what thier promised land will be like once they die, and that the guy down the street that they do not like will go somewhere else- somewhere where the justice they have craved here in the present will finally get visited upon him. It is ridiculus no matter how you try and defend it.

We have real problems that must be adressed in the right here and now. If you truly believe that the seperation of church and state has been effective, you are badly out of touch or not in the US at all. A candidates religion is one of the most important deciding factors when this bunch of yahoos are deciding which neo-con conservative they will elect next. Like they freely admit, what is most important to them is whether the candidate will inforce the will of thier fake God, not whether he will provide jobs and security for the country- not whether he will take us into a ridiculus war- not whether he will create lasting peace with other nations or solve our social ills.

You say you support religions because you are able to understand different cultures and beliefs of people you do not know. No, i think you support it because you are not ready to let go of your views of good and evil, of poetic justice if not here and now then after death, of the romantic view that there is somehow magic in the world. Because religion does not recognize these other cultures and beliefs as valid, does it? It simply says this is the way and the light and anything else is evil and destined to fail. A secular society comes much closer to being able to recognize the rights of other cultures and the validity of foreign beliefs, you know this i think. You seem much too intelligent for me to buy that you honestly think a religiouse society would be more open to other belief systems and cultures.

That said I have no issue with whatever you believe. Just do not let it stand in the way of your responsibility as a citizen of a democracy. The responsibility to understand the political issues on the table from a secular point of view, to get out and vote and base that vote on actuall political reasoning not religiouse belief, to support the constitution-which says church and state should be entirely seperate. No religiouse views playing into political decisions or attempts to alienate minorities, no interference with individual rights for homosexuals or other religiousely despised peoples- like me an atheist. If you can achieve these things you are not part of the problem at least.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

ez2b12, you write to The ImPoster as if religion and science operates separate from human thought. It doesn't. Religion was created and maintained by humans for whatever needs some of them have. Science is also created and maintained by humans for the same reason. There is room for everyone on this planet.

Unless, you live in a country that forces people to belong to a religion, you don't have to. I am aware that some cultures do require this. I am sure many have secret doubts about the existence of God in those countries as they did in the West during the reign of the Roman Catholic Church.

I happen to believe there is lots of magic in this world and see it everyday. I also love science and read it as much as I can for I don't always understand it. I love the Nobel Prizes as it shows me what advances are being honored. I understand the Nobel for literature far more.

Atheists don't have the key to an understanding of life anymore than anyone else for society as a whole. They just have it for themselves as individuals. We all seek to understand the world we live in and each of us finds answers for today. I don't think we disagree in many things regarding religion. I just don't think it is necessary to convince people one particular way is better than the other. My objection is when one group of people, usually an organized religion wants to hammer someone into the ground for not believing in the same things they do.

It is a shame that some people need other people to find their answers, but it will always be that way. I am glad that organized religions are not in control of the countries where I am living and that I can read of scientific advances. I am glad that people like Stephen Hawkin is free to discover whatever he can discover up there in the heavens or down here on earth without being threaten by torture as Galileo was. However, I am concerned about some of the people running for office in the US and their disregard for science and human rights.

Now, I am ranting and raving. Each of us has to respect and let the other have their individual differences even if we can " see the error of their ways." Our pent up anger of being hammered by others during the years will just spread the karma of anger and do no one any good.

i am become death

i met an african american seventh day adventist that preached to me of gods love, so i told him of the pro stance god takes on slavery in the torah and NT, and that if god were truly loving he would have set the emancipation laws in his book and not leave us to prove ourselves morally superior. in rebuttal he quite fervently stated that god only intended one to be a slave for 7 years. i'm sorry i'm just horrified at how people can justify this evil banality. not to mention the several genocides in the torah held in awe by its proponents.
those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. #@$% it 2 and a half men is on.

ez2b12

@ Lori

i completely agree with you about most of what you say, i think i came off wrong actually. I live in the bible belt and I am sick of religion mixing into politics, thats really the root of my arguement. Past that i could care less if you see magic or not or are religiouse or what. I am not but thats me and I do not expect anything of my fellow man accept to keep religion and supernatural beliefs out of every day problems like poverty, war, the economy or the public realm in general. Let that which falls to the individual fall to the inndividual and let what concerns society be rightly judged on scientific data, reality instead of faith based solutions and psuedo scientific medicine. thats all i am asking.

I get a little over zealous but the truth is once you trade magic for fact thier are no trade backs, and i swapped it in years ago for a cold hard reality, I had to. I really had no choice but that is a whole other story. All i want is that all practicle problems get dealt with in a practicle manner based on tested and confirmed scientific methods. That we stop at least promoting the belief in faith based solutions we don't have to slander it or belittle it just not promote it- that would be a welcome first step.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

ez2b12, at least there we can agree. I don't need my elected leaders to agree with my religious belief although I tend to think they should share my ethical concerns. I think we should look for answers toward universal health care, civil rights for all groups of people and many of the things that the current administration has pledged itself to do.

I don't think we should require women to donate their wombs to the state nor any of the other silly things some in the religious right tend to believe in including the teaching of creationism in the classroom.

I did see anger from past Bible bashers in your post and I can understand your anger as I did share that years ago. Maybe I still have some. A good documentary to see on how far this anger can take their followers is in a film that the BBC did that is on this site, "The Most Hated Family in America" . They are presently in front of the US Supreme Court arguing for the right of free speech. Their actions at the funerals of slain soldiers is despicable but I hope they win because free speech is precious and cannot be denied even to them.

ez2b12

@ Lori

i have seen that doc about the west something baptist church. I could not stand those people. i agree that freedom of speech should be protected but I see no reason to allow it at a funeral against the wishes of the family that has lost someone. If they would make a law protecting the rights of those families to bury thier family member in what ever way they see fit, within reason, and to do so peacefully with no interuptions or protests allowed within so many miles- that would settle it for me. I really don't care about them protesting at other events, just not funerals.

I saw another documentary about that same family and church and in this one some gay guy exposes that one of the children of the crazy mom was born out of wed-lock. of course he doesn't care about that but if she is going to scream how people that just associate with others they see as Bad are going to H@#l then she has to hold herself to the same standard. The documentary ends at that point as she freaks out of course and gets rid of the guy.

Just goes to show thast this is people in love with an ideal of behavior that can not even be obtained. Even the most devout and devoted christian or whatever eventually falls short, it is human nature.Now we have to question a omnipotent benevolent God that creates us with a built in flaw of character, and then threatens to burn us for eternity if we cannot somehow rise above the very flaw inherent in his design. Sounds kind of fishy to me, no pun entended.

john

@all people of faith, god is the explanation for a primitive people for what they could not yet understand, the furthering of our understanding by the sciences and the mechanics of nature have created the so called god of the gaps and thankfully the gaps are getting smaller and smaller. faith is NOT a good thing. decisions need to be made on understanding and evidence.

ponderman

why are believers happier than non believers? is it in "their" genes?

ponderman

@john

faith is the most powerful force in the Universe

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

ponderman, I know people who are not believers and they seem to be pretty happy to me, so I am not sure where you got your "fact" from. As for the most powerful force in the Universe, as a Buddhist I would have to disagree. Its karma. As a human being, I would say black holes and gravity. Your "righteous" point of view is what is upsetting so many of the posters here. You know that, don't you? I am sitting here laughing my head off. It is so ironic.

ez2b12

@ The Imposter

Read some text? I have a degree in theology, Just a two year degree granted- and I have never done anything with it. My point is I have read many religiouse texts- The bible, the Quran, the Torah, many of the apocryphal books even. I am currently taking a study of the Old testament but centering on the pentateuch. I don't get into eastern religions much, or haven't yet though I am sure I will eventually.
I hold much respect for all these religiouse texts as works of literature, and together they help paint a brilliant picture of a long dead and alien culture- alien to me anyway. I do not believe in the super natural though in any form, god or demon or whatever.

All i am saying is that religion should not control everything, which it does and has since time began mostly. There are other avenues for answering the questions of mankind, more reliable and practicle avenues. If people want to retain thier faith that is thier business, but lets not let it spill into the publc forum and disrupt necessary process vital to our survival. We have to worry about the here and now and take more personal responsibility. God is not the engineer of our pain nor the savior either, he is the product of ancient fear and defense mechanism deep in our brain. Could I be wrong, yes I definetly could. But I tell you this, if he is there I have a bone to pick with him. How dare he prosecute us for the flaw in our making, when he is the maker. I'll look him in the eye and say, "I never lived a lie, never took a life but surely saved one.(my own) Hallaluya, its time for you to call me home.Fetch me the spirit, the son and the father, tell them thy pillar of faith has ascended.Its time now, my time now, give me my wings!" and if he be the omnipotent benevolent savior he is claimed to be, he will let me in. For I have only been honest to the nature he created me in, right? As the cool guys say, "keeping it real" thats all.

Look I don't want to take anything away from anyone. Far be it from me to say i have any answers, only more questions. I understand the desire to believe, I am soon to lose someone very close to me and I would love nothing more than to think somehow- someway? but no- I will never see him again, and that's killing me inside. But i can not say that i have ever been moved to accept anything other than the reality that is life, often boring and repetetive while punctuated with sweet pain and suffering.

Pain can be a uplifting and inspiring state of being, to feel just how alive your old bones and muscles can be. And I, like everyone, also manage to achieve some state of awe and wonder at times- though brief and fleeting it is. But for the sake of our collective well being and survival we must put away these fantasies and indulgences and get down to cold hard reality man. Our world is falling apart around our feet and we have choices to make. Choices that should not be guided by supernatural mumbo jumbo but cold hard facts, to which science is the fastest route we know. We have choices to make man, don't fool yourself into thinking some omnipotent all mighty character gives a d%^n about little old us. As Randy often points out we are nothing, drops of water in an endless sea. Our short riegn on this tiny rock could be blown out like the flame on a cosmic candle, and nothing would really change would it. This is not to say people can not or should not have thier own right to thier own personal beliefs. Just that we must come to some consensus and soon or the decision will be no longer important.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

ez2b12, I know your post is directed towards someone else, but consider that although I find books extremely important to me I would not look for spiritual answers there. I would look within and I am not writing here to tell you of THE TRUTH. I am just saying I just don't see the world as you do. I don't see the world as falling apart at our feet as you said. I think there is much we can do to improve things but that has always been the case.

Everyone alive feels pain. We as a human species are born in pain. There is nothing we can do to avoid that but accept it. Some of us have more than others. I used to think I had all of the pain in the world. What can I say? I was young then. I know better now. We all mature and learn.

I think we are lucky to have poets in this world because they can see the magic that exists. I see it everyday. I don't think I see it because I am special. I think it is available to everyone if we just look. If you don't want to, that's OK too.

I loved the documentary that started this whole discussion because it points out the magic of this world. I think it is marvelous how life began and how it was formed and still is evolving on this planet. I really feel sorry for those who cannot see this and stick to the rather narrow and sad story a book relates about how we as a species came about. I think science tells a much better story and to think it is true. Can you imagine listening to a story that your whole brain tells you just can't be true and thus cutting off discussion in your own head? We have choice but those in the Dark Ages didn't.

Also, can you imagine for a moment that the Higher Power or whatever one can term God looks in a book to see if he or she can do something? "God" is so much bigger, greater and more powerful than any book humans can write ever. I know I can never understand the entire scope of what the Eternal is and I have come to accept that.

I like your ideas about governing people without religious ideas. It is called the separation of church and state. Our founders, if you are an American, had the same ones. They were Deists for the most part. Many people in the Christian Right seem to forget that.

I do enjoy our discussions. It is a break from work. Today, I made the mistake of getting on the scale when I got up and am feeling devastated. For me, hell on earth is a truthful scale.

ez2b12

@ Lori

I am not very good at expressing myself I suppose, you seem to have misunderstood again. I write poetry myself and play music, love art in general. All i am saying is it has no place in the decisions that govern the economy or foriegn policy for instance. In my opinion the world IS falling down around our feet; cyclic consumption, global warming, oil spills, fresh water becoming just another commodity, peak oil and no seriouse efforts to get into renewables, etc., etc. Yes there is alot we can do, but we can't even admit the problem and properly study it because of, among other things, religion.

So I suppose I see the type of magic you referr to as well, in nature, human nature, art, and science believe it or not falls in this catagorey often for me. I don't have the imagination I used to have as a child anymore, time robbs us of our magic as we go through life trading it for first one fact and then another. Before long what little bit you do have left you are willing to fight for, i know the feeling. But as I have expressed above we must put that aside when dealing with the issues that demand our attention.In fact we must all be willing to sacrifice some of our magic for fact if need be.

By the way speaking of poetry, I have just read a poem that I absolutedly love called Litany by Billy Collins. Its not a new poem at all and you have probably already read it but if you haven't you should. You can google it and get plenty of readings, or just the text of course. I like to hear poetry spoken aloud, as it was designed to be. It helps reveal the subtley of the rythm and ryme, for me. The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner is also a good one by Randal Jarret, sobering indeed.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

I can't hear meter, never could but love poetry. My son wrote a book of poetry and got it published. I was so proud and he gave readings. I love Billy Collins and read Litany off the Poetry Magazine web site. Oh, I love that web site. I rarely listen to poetry out loud because of my hearing problem although I did hear Dylan Thomas once many years ago off my radio when I was working and fell in love with his poetry. It was on NPR. I was supposed to be working.

Again, when we communicate, we are no so far apart. We are just two different human beings. Time did not rob me of the magic I felt as a kid. I learned to believe in it more than ever, I just don't let anyone talk me out of it. I am 65 years old and my time here in South Korea has certainly taught me the more thunderstorms I go through the more rainbows I seem to see. However, I have always been spiritual and gave up religion a long time ago. As I wrote a while back, when I have to declare a religion I usually put down Buddhist for a lack of a better answer although I usually include Taoist.

I am not saying you are wrong. Far from it. I am right for me. I don't see the world being as bad as you do although it could use some help from human beings. I try not to add to it but I am sure I fail in this. At least I don't do road rage anymore or not here in Korea since I don't have a car. The taxis I take do though.

I love to read the literature that is around when evolution was introduced by Darwin and Wallace. I love to read the literature that is around defending the science and the occasional trips to court that goes on in the US. That is why I watched the above documentary. There is a science trip that a ship does complete with lecturers and scientists that follows the same trip that the British ship, the Beagle, took with Charles Darwin around South America. It has been too expensive for me. Maybe someday.

i am become death

@ponderman- my experience is that believers aren't happy they just pretend so you join their faith and sink with them. come give in to jesus and all your worldly desires will be fulfilled. most churches i've seen are worse than AA meetings. just one church i attended the youth pastor turned out to be a paedophile the head pastor cheated on his wife 4 times and these pricks tried to tell us how to live morally.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."
-George Bernard Shaw

i am become death

faith is the most destructive force on the planet-if we allow ourselves to believe that our own individual thoughts are divinely bestowed as moral law, who knows how we may justify our sadistic actions towards others.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
-Voltaire
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Corey

@john

I'm sorry, but I don't see how any one of those points are contributed to religion alone. Those are all traits/problems associated with human beings and not things derived from religion alone.

Religion is just a divisive as sports teams. There have been huge riots over sports teams in Europe, people have been killed, cars flipped and lit on fire, rival team fans beaten. They may not be on the same scale as religious conflicts, but the association with the parties involved are not on the same scale either.

Religion also brings people together. My mothers side of the family is religious and even though I am not, being around them during holidays is fantastic. There's no fighting, no complaining. None of the things religion is branded as.

Once again this all can be contributed to humans themselves and not religion. Religion was created by humans, we already had problems we just came up with an excuse for them.

Yes there is fighting over the "Promise/Holy land" in the Middle-East, but you answered why yourself. It isn't because of religion it's because: "(formed by the guilty allies after ww2 by STEALING palestinian land)". They stole the land, and the Palestinian's want it back. (Well at least I suppose, I'm not very familiar with Middle-Eastern affiars, such as what you're talking about).

"The systematic raping of children by Roman Catholic Priests". I've never heard of a systematic raping of children. The holocaust was a SYSTEMATIC extermination of Jewish people. I think that "systematic" was a bit of an exaggeration. However I could be wrong, and a source would prove it so.

However once again these rapes have nothing to do with religion. They happened because these people who happened to be priests were already fucked up.

I'm not saying that all of those things you've said are good things. However they are all problems with humans. People fight over land who aren't religious, people rape children who aren't religious, etc. etc. You can blame it on religion if you wish, but to stereotype something so drastically is a bit ridiculous.

Like I said earlier, half of my family is religious, yet they don't do any of the things you've talked about. Religion isn't ALL bad. There are just some s@#$%& f@$% who ruin it for everyone else.

Religion brings people together. The presence of many may cause conflicting opinions and opposition, but it is our choice as humans to act as we do. Religion doesn't cause problems, peoples rationale does.

ez2b12

@ Lori

It has been nice talking with you Lori. I read your blog quite regularly and have always found you to be a very couragouse person. Good luck in Korea- I'll keep reading, you keep writing- it's very interesting stuff. Its fun to watch someone recreate themselves in a new atmosphere. Don't let that scale get you down, through reading your blog I have witnessed you over come bigger things. I'm glad you have managed to hold on to your magic, few of us do.

Randy

@EZ

Listen, if it weren't so close to Hallowe'en, and you weren't so very amart, I would not be praying to Dark Gods for the deliverance of you, to me.... for food...

It's all about your brains, you are really smart, therefore, I must eat your brains... it is simple, really...

Just submit to the eating of you, by me... JUST DO IT!

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

ez2b12, thank you for your kind words. Randy, I was silly the other day and I guess it's your time to be just as silly.

bret

Evolution - A theory developed before - computers, electron microscopes, DNA, RNA, TV's, telephones, etc. This theory takes so much faith it is ridiculous. God created everything, and though he could have used evolution to do it, He didn't. Evolution would never randomly happen - not in a zillion years, not ever. Why do we waste so much energy on this useless topic? Instead of teaching 2nd graders how to read and write we are teaching them about rocks. Why? Rocks are the basis of evolution. This theory will become more and more embarrassing as time passes - like blood letting and the sun orbiting the Earth.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Randy, never mind. There is someone else who is more sillier than you could ever me on this post.

Robert Allen

Bret:

As if belief in a supreme being does not take faith.

How do you know that evolution didn't randomly happen? At least scientists offer evidence.

How do you know that the theory of evolution will become more embarassing as time goes on?

How do you know that God created everything and did not use evolution to do it?

How do you know that second graders study stones in place of reading? As a matter of fact, how can you really study stones without being able to read?

In all, it's hard to believe you're serious, but if you are, you're the most cogent argument against theology.

Randy

Hello, Lori!

Could I interest you in some brain eating? You are very smart... I'm just saying... a little bit of your brains...

You won't even miss it...

C'MON!

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Randy, I need all that I have. Have you watched the new film on this site, "What Darwin didn't Know" or something like that. It is made by Nova PBS, one of my favorites. I think I watched it when it came out on Darwin's birthday last year. I watched the first part while eating breakfast. It was very good and DNA plays a major part.

It's Sunday here in Korea and I am going to church as the service is in English and I am a sucker for anything in English so I am getting ready. They know I am not a Christian but they don't mind.

Speaking of zombies, I have you read that Jane Austin meets the zombies book? I can't get any book I want here in Korea but I am curious. I thought that is what is driving you crazy with brains lately.

Randy

@Lori

From Joseph Campbell but it realtes to silliness...

I paraphrase from memory but you know what I am talking about, with your big brains... *slurp*

"Theere is an ancient African myth of a god walking down the street. His hat is half black and half red.

The people on the west side of the street say, 'Did you see the GOD walking with the BLACK HAT?'

The People on the East side say, 'The god's hat was RED!'

And then there is war and horror but the god laughs.

The trickster god. The origin of Loki or clowns or comedians, there may be something laughing at us!

Seriously, can I get a little brain off of you? I mean...

C'MON!

Achems Razor

@Randy:

I'm telling you, have to be careful on picking and choosing brains, if you are into fast food at times, you might end up with prepackaged freeze dried brain from a species somewhat like @bret: religee brains, which strikes me as brains of substandard species, might turn you off brains forever! Or do you only eat fresh, free range run, type of brains?

Randy

LOL! @Achems!

Thank you for being so, concerned. Also, you are diligent to your friends that just want to eat some brains...

You have a big juicy brain, in fact...

*Randy grins wolfishly and his yellow eyes stare at ACHEMS*

ponderman

i am become death said" my experience is that believers aren’t happy they just pretend so you join their faith and sink with them. come give in to jesus and all your worldly desires will be fulfilled. most churches i’ve seen are worse than AA meetings. just one church i attended the youth pastor turned out to be a paedophile the head pastor cheated on his wife 4 times and these pricks tried to tell us how to live morally."

Believers are pretending to be happy? Ok, thats a new one. Does that mean non believers are pretending to be miserable so that noone joins their faith?

I have never met an "athiest" not an agnostic, but pure athiest that was happy. They tend to be unhappy, pessismistic people with a chip on their shoulder. An agnostic, or one who doubts the existence tend to be at least a little more open to the possibility. But a true believer, one that has lettin go of worldly worship, tends to be the most happy.. So is this happiness because of a real existence? I dont know, but this goes back to my comment that faith is the most powerful thing in the universe. Some of you commented that its the most destructive thing. Yes it can be. But so can atomic energy, yet that same atomic energy that can destroy a city is clean, and can light up entire regions cheaply.
So guess what, faith in that which can be seen or proven, is the most powerful thing available to an indidivual. If you wont allow yourself to grasp it, you are a coward and cheating yourself from fullest existence.

ez2b12

@ pondermen

Congratulations you have put your finger on the very first thing that told me religion was probaly not true. The fact that it, if you can buy it, will make you happier and less scared. Does this tell you anything? Like maybe this whole thing was made up to help man get over his natural fear of death, to give him dualistic thought good vrs evil- which makes everything so much simpler, to help him believe in some sense of justice even if it only gets applied after death. It should but i doubt it does. My experiance is that anyone that can buy this whole religion stuff will not be swayed by reality or evidence, if they could be they never would have believed in the first place- at least not after reaching the age of reason.

So yes, holding a more realistic view of the world does make one less happy and often more bored and often even biligerant- that is the price we pay for accepting the reality of the world instead of making up romantic fantasies about poetic justice, good versus evil, and oh yes that utopian exsistence believers think they will get to take part in. Does this mean we should all just fool ourselves into believing what ever it takes to feel better? I don't think so. I think it means we should find away to accept the truth and live a more happy and productive life within this belief instead of continually making up things in order to be happy and then having the audacity to proclaim your superiority because you have managed this false emotion. You want to be proud, find a way to believe the truth and retain that happiness, then you have honestly achieved something.

This reminds me of that question, "Did I listen to sad love songs because I was lonely and sad? Or was I lonely and sad because I listen to sad love songs?" Truth is it is a little of both I think. Certain types of people are predisposed to buy religion and once they buy it it feeds thier belief. Others are not predisposed to this, and as a result have no ecclesiatical shield against the harsh realities that are real truth. Still many atheists remain happy and productive, and to me that is more commendable than buying some fantasy and using that to remain happy. To know the truth and remain a good decent person anyway, that is noble.

By the way in case you missed it, I am an atheist and a very happy one at that. This is not due to my atheism, can you say your happiness is not due to your belief? According to your statements above I suppose not. Think about that, your happiness rests on belief in the supernatural abilities of some unseen unmeasured omnipotent being that supposedly created us all with a flaw(called logic or common sense) he now threatens to burn us until eternity for possesing. That doesn't bother you somehow?

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

Ponderman, I wrote to you before. Why do you persist in pushing your faith where it is not needed nor wanted? If your faith makes you happy, then relish, cherish and enjoy it. Don't push it on people who don't want it. I happen to have a very strong spiritual belief but it is my personal business and to push "my truth" on others seems rude. No one has the handle on spiritual truth.

J

@Lori
Just had to chime in and say well said Lori. You seem like a thoughtful and enlightened individual.

Randy

Yeah, Lori is great...

I was an a$$ and yelled at her in the past but, then I saw she had big brains...

She rocks!

Cliff T

@mankind

The Earth like planet you are talking about is only 20 lightyears away. Think what that means for a moment. It's very close on a cosmic scale and it's going round a red dwarf which isn't the best but it's a start. Now if an Earth like planet is found so close it means the chances of there being more such planets is astronomically high.

Now this still doesn't mean life exists on that planet but considering how long Red Dwarfs live for there is a very probable chance it does harbour life of some description, even if the planet it tidally locked.

Epicurus

@Charles.

you said

"Before you make germs and people the distant offspring of one very ancient mold cell that came about by accidental chemical interactions, wouldn’t it also be at least possible that similar DNA and its function indicates a common Creator using a winning design rather than a common ancestry?"

not at all. what i have done is infer the best explanation BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN. what you have done is taken your preheld belief that there is a creator and you apply that to the information you get. you are breaking Occam's Razor. you are positing an entity that is not needed to explain a phenomenon. given two different explanations with the same amount of evidence, the option that assumes less is the more logical one to go with.

what i find neat is that you said "very ancient mold cell that came about by accidental chemical interactions". there is nothing accidental about it. it was an absolutely 100% necessary chemical reaction which followed from deterministic variables. saying that when i put water in a fridge that it randomly magicaly becomes ice is the same essentially as what you are trying to say there. it is either $tupid or facetious.

the zeros after the one are STILL showing a probability. the probability of god is STILL at 0 as there is nothing to measure it by. you are STILL using more faith. the "odds" that you and I would have this conversation are probably ALSO astronomically large. you live all the way over there and believe in a god and i live in canada and dont believe in a god...what are the odds we would be conversing? does that now mean that god made it happen or that it would NECESSARILY follow that a god was needed????? be intellectually honest when you answer that.

PS: of course we are buddies Randy...dare i say, homies??

my nukka!

Whiteliketar

oh my goodness - the magnificence of God's creation relegated to the madness of the insidious deception of the term Specie . No wonder they billions of years to hide their madness.

The Heretic

Wow.. Great video! Thank you Vlatko for posting them all!
This is the first that Ive seen to explain the process and conclusions in such a straight forward and easy to understand format.
What? It's 2010, and people are still believing in a God? I think this supports my theory that even Religious Evolution needs a Mass Extinction Event to get the ball rolling!

ZED

THERE IS NO FAITH NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND EVOLUTION, IT IS AN INHERENT PROCESS THAT GIVEN THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES WILL HAPPEN EVERY TIME.
THERE IS NO OPEN CONTEST BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION BECAUSE SCIENCE IS BY DEFINITION WHAT CAN BE PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT, WHILST RELIGION IS SOMETHING THAT SOME PEOPLE BELIEVE IN DESPITE A LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.
IF SCIENCE WAS NOT EXACT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THIS DOC BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T EXIST ALONG WITH ALL OTHER TECHNOLOGIES.
THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING - WHEN YOU CAN RUN YOUR CAR ON RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES, THEN WE CAN HAVE A SCIENCE V RELIGION DEBATE, UNTIL THEN JUST BE GRATEFUL THAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO OPERATE OUR SCIENTIFICALY ENGINEERED TECHNOLOGY DESPITE NOT BELIEVING IN THE PRICIPLES THAT THAT MAKE THEIR EXISTENCE POSSIBLE. @:~)

Achems Razor

@ZED:

Right on!!
Even with your caps lock on, which is not needed on these blogs, I agree with what you are saying.

Science and religion will never be compatible. Like oil and water, do not mix!
Like you have said, religion does not run the computers that we use to get these messages across. Pure science prevails!!

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Dissapointing. Asserts vague generalizations and illogicals - calling them "facts." One example; '...over the last 150 years evolution by desecent has been tested and has never been proven wrong...' (sic). One would have to be GOD to know the outcome of every test over the last 150 years. Of course there has been at least one test in the last 150 years that did not prove something.
This record also uses circular reasoning as it is a lie to date fossils by the layer it is found in, and to date the layer by the fossils found in them. Few people are stupid enough to beleive these deceptions - whether they call themselves "scientists, doctors" or any other title.
I was excited to watch this because of the calims for scientific evidence, but the video fails to present any, therefore this presentation makes false statements. It is strange why people spend time and money to attempt to push the religion of evolution. A final note. Continental drift or pangea has not been proven, and with current technology there is no way to prove either. The only real proof we have is witness. If you have seen something - sometimes it is real, but even then people can be easily decieved. Basically humans can prove little.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Zed,
If evolution is a process that will hapeen everytime - then why has no one ever witnessed it? You have never seen anything evolve, so you are speaking a false witness. If your statement were true, then surely someone would have seen something evolve by now. A horse never gives birth to a new horse- like creature. A dog never gives birth to a super dog. The only variations humans have witnessed are slight variations within species - such as different coat pattern, size, etc. Humans have tried to make changes but it is usually a fail. for example dolly the cloned sheep that fell apart. Chihuahas, a bred variation of the canine family are certainly not a improvement in the family, but a weaker variation than it's predecessors. Even a hawk could kill a chihaua easily, or a rat.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

1speed2racer78, please elaborate---------------- 1speed2racer78 wrote: "So if evolution is true then why can mules not mate?"

Samusakis

@Jacob

After what you said, I dare you to say that you beleve in god!

If you see a problem with the current fossil dating methods please correct these mistakes or make a whole different system altogether. If you successfully manage to prove its superiority over current systems, everyone will respectfully listen to what you have to say.
However since all you do is bitch bout what you dont like without any contribution to the subject you fail to impress anyone.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

if evolution were real, we would have seen somoene by now give birth to a different kind of human. Even then, it would not prove evolution. Everything in this world is so specifically and perfectly ordered and arranged. A blade of grass, for instance or a seed, or the tiny spark that keeps your heart beating - every beat - every day and night - which no one can explain or provide any evidence for. The search for truth is admirable, but when it leads to anger and arguing over things that are mysteries and probably always will be, then something has gone too far. The problem with the religion of evolution is that it leads to what hitler did. he tried to evolve the "aryan" race and kill all those he decided who were not as evolved. Well we all not what happened there. The most evolved got their hinders kicked by the american mutts. A nation of outcasts and immigrants achieved victory over a techologically advanced army. There are some things science, facts can not explain. Evolution leads to abortion (google margret sanger) and ultimately to the religion of reducing the worlds population. Who wants to go first?

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Samusukis,
There are no accurate dating methods -anyone who does dating testing knows this.
There is no way to prove the age of a fossil. A dog in Georgia was once fossilszed inside of a log during a flood. This happened not over 200000 billion years, but apparently within hours.
In south dakota, at the badlands museum, they sell fossils of trilobites along with clims they are a ancient species billions of years old.... too bad national geographic just found living, breathing moving trilobites on bornea. All it takes is a heart willing to stick to facts, and desiring the truth and about 10 hours of serious research to realize nothing has been proven.
Want evidence about layers? Here is evidence. Fill a glass jar with soil, sand, rocks etc. Add water. Shake it. Set it down. What happens? The soil, sand etc settles into layers. quickly. The end.

Samusakis

He re is ho it works.

For example:
You see a bone, do your little test as to see how old is it and thats it for now.

Next day you find another bone that is virtualy the same exept for some little deformity you do the tests that tell you its few million years younger and go to bed.

The next day yet again you find the same bone with that same deformity but now its more wisible and yet again that bone is younger that those before it... you go to sleep.

Meenwhile guys like yourself find a bunch of these similar bones and compare notes. After all those finding it appears that from some little shrimp or whatever that crawled on to land in a time cycle of milions upon bilion of yers withat all those minor adjustments that shrimp became a f****** T-rex.

And that is why scientis say that they 'observed' it becouse it's all there you dont need a living creature to back your claims up becouse you'd still have to kill it and disect it to see what has changed.

This is the most dummed down version of evolution that I can think of even scientis cant bring themselves to this level, maybe that's why some people can't understand them.

Samusakis

@Jacob

Ok what I said does not defend the current dating system all I ment was that if you have a method in your mind that would be more acurate your are fee to claim your mobel prie or whatever.

All you do now is b*** about stuff. Dude if you say that something is wrong then you must provide the alternative. You cant just say:
'ya'll stoopid! That dont work that and that so you know nothing about anything!!!11!!1'

Provide an alternative or STFU scientis dont just sit around thinking how to mess up someones ideas, THEY WHAT TO REPLACE THEM WHITH THEIR OWN! And if you dont have one go do some tests dig some bones or what ever until you do.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Achems Razor5 @Mr. Majestik:

In rsponse to Achems Razor who wrote:

"You think that your fairy tale of a book written in the bronze age would have a clue of any type of empirical science. et al:

Of course no mention, because the writers did not know! they just only came out of the Earth was flat scenario! That stuff you are reading, (Bibles) is not real!"

Actually the book of psalms, a 2000 year old document, describes that the earth as a sphere (not flat as you stated)
which hangs in space by nothing.
The book of Enoch (older than psalms) describes outer space in detail, with specific detail to how the sun and moon work.

Research before you argue.

Robert Allen

To Jacob:

Considering the astronomical numbers involved, current dating methods are just fine and are getting better. First of all, to determine the age of a fossil, a number of dating methods are employed on it simultaneously. Secondly, when you're talking about millions of years, a few thousand years more or less is irrelevant. Your statement "anyone who does dating testing knows this." is pathetic and distorted.

I have no idea what your anecdote about a dog in Georgia is supposed to disprove. Indeed, under the right conditions, fossilization can occur quickly--look at the dinosaurs!
New discoveries are being made all the time, disproving what was widely held. This validates, not invalidates, the very concept of science. So what if some species of trilobite still exists? And, by the way, what does this have to do with fossils of trilobites at the Badlands Museum?

In short, you need to learn something, especially about cohesiveness so lacking in your discussion of layers. What are you trying to prove?

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Samusakis
I appreciate reading your opinion. My purpose is not to prove how old things are. My purpose is discern the differnce between fact and theory. The documentary aserts tbat it presents 'facts' which prove what they state is true. But they did not. I do not know all of the facts. I dont know how old my sister is - i certainly dont know how old a bone is. My point is that as of today there are no known accurate methods for dating. You are asking me to establish a accurate dating method. My reply is, no. I have other things to do today. I am not interested in the age of dirt. I am interested in exposing lies and learning what is truth. If ever find that I need to know the age of dirt in order to learn about truth, then maybe i will try to establish a dating method. However, since many intelligent scientists devoted their lives to it and have come close, but in the end have found nothing, I probably wont try unless I have some reason to believe I could find something that those greatly academics had missed - but they did not miss much - but they still failed.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Robert Allen,
I agree. Dating current dating methods give us results which can vary tens t ohundreds of thousands of years. Take for instance the last testing I was involved in, which under replicated tests, the results each trial varied from 20 years old to 1 million years. What a waste of time. Researchers often find what they are looking for because they are being paid to find it. If they dont find lucy (a pigs jaw bone), they dont get paid. Then they might have to go back to working at a 9-5. Find the truth. The truth will set you free.

Samusakis

@Jacob

Ok, now I understand what your trying to say.

Here is how a theory works - first and foremost it will never be PROVEN. Take gravity for exaple, apple fall, you stand on the ground instead of loating of and if birds had no wings they could not fly, those are FACTS now why are you standing on the ground and why does the apple fall is a diferent question and the only way to explain it is by devising a THEORY. Scientists think that matter atracts matter and it is a dominant THEORY at the time. I for instance dissagree completely, not that things dont fall but the THEORY that matter attract matter. One day, maybe I or someone else will establish another theory and it will be a welcomed thing becouse scientists know it's wrong but no one can make another THEORY.

Do you see how this relates to THEORY of evolution if it has flaws then you fix it ,however this does not mean that every FACT about it is wrong. Would you feel better if it was called 'The THEORY of how God did it'?

http://ELserve.net Jacob

In response to ponderman98, who wrote - "
ponderman98 i am become death said” my experience is that believers aren’t happy they just pretend so you join their faith and sink with them. come give in to jesus and all your worldly desires will be fulfilled. most churches i’ve seen are worse than AA meetings. just one church i attended the youth pastor turned out to be a paedophile the head pastor cheated on his wife 4 times and these pricks tried to tell us how to live morally.”"

A common logic error is to state something is false because the witness is flawed: for example - "the world must be flat because the people who say it is round cheat on their wives."

I don't know what a convo about evolution has to do with 'Jesus', but since you brought it up, I feel compelled to address this post which makes some very common mistakes.
As someone who has studied historical documents including books commonly referred to as the 'bible' I can share this: I have found nowhere in the 'bible' where there is a directive to attend 'church' in it's common western form.
JESUS went to the 'church' of His day and culture (although it was so different from what westerners call church that it can not really be compared) only to cause controversy and be almost stoned by the 'church' people. JESUS hated religion. He said, "call no man father" (catholic priests are called father), call no human teacher or leader (depending on how one chooses to translate the word for leader). JESUS said, do not let yourself be called rabbi (spiritual leader or teacher = pastor) to his disciples. Jeremiah says "trust no man" and that pastors are leading GOD's people to destruction.
Another verse states: "How can you build a house for Me? (GOD).
So do not disqualify JESUS because of what some people do. especially church people who are playing church at their own direction - not at the direction of the JESUS of the 'bible'.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

@Jacob,

Get the Bible out of your a## and get some real education. You're making f@#$ of yourself. And don't waste the resources of this website by preaching your ignorance. Go and talk about your religion somewhere else. I'm wondering why people like you are polluting almost every scientific documentary with religious creationist c@#$.

The c@#$ you're saying was discussed over and over again many times and there is no way to explain something to a brainwashed men like yourself. So go and indoctrinate you children with that make believe fairy tale. Ignorance is bliss.

@Samusakis,

Go back to school and learn what is a theory, fact, hypothesis, etc. and the differences between them and explain that to @Jacob.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

samusakis,
I can agree with most of what you wrote. Yes I believe that most of what people operate on is theory. No one has seen "GOD" - so how could you prove HE IS? I am not aware of any factual evidence to the existence of GOD or the age of the dinosaur bones in the museum down the street (which by the way, are put together based on a theory of how the creature might have looked - not on fact. The assertion I am making is that the documentary these posts are based on does not provide facts to prove anything. This is dissapointing, because the intro states that it has facts. I have grown to hate lies - from santa claus to energy drinks, the world has lied to me my whole life. This blog has discussed everything from layers to JESUS, but it should have only needed one post. "I watched this - it said it presents facts bu it didnt." that should have been the end - move on to the next. Instead, people are so hungry to know the truth, they will accept things that arent proven as proof. There is a attempt to get people to believe evolution is a fact, not a theory. Some organizations are spending a lot of money to influence people to believe they are really animals. Why? You are not a animal. You take a dump on the grass. You are unique,and intelligent- magnificent, a miracle. So why is someone trying so hard to make the masses believe something that cannot be proven and has become a scientific joke?

http://ELserve.net Jacob

vlatko,
I love you. But I wouldn't want to meet you on the street.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Sam
really in order for any discussion of this nature to function all participants would need to define words like "fact"... one person might say, I saw the apple fall - that is a fact. another may not believe that witness but might call it fact if two people saw the apple fall. How can we define fact?
Then there are people who join these things and start making illegal slanderous attacks and threats (internet communication is governed by Interstate Commerce Laws) and Inernational Hate Crimes Legislation - which make a lot of people have written in this post crimes) -which make these convos dificult. In the end each person will have to choose what he or she beleives - some things - most things will not be "factually proven."

Samusakis

I took the gravity example from "Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" and it made sence there so I thought it will make a good exaple here in this discussion (apperantly not).

@Vlatko

Go back to school?! F*** that! I cheated my way out of there and no one in the world would make me go there again!
Scary Russians don't scare me for I'm from LT! >.<

Achems Razor

@Jacob:

Proof you say??
Give us one shred of undisputed hard empirical evidence that your "Jesus" even existed, than maybe us dye in the wool evolutionists will sit up and take notice!! Go ahead, I challenge you, the onus is on you to show your proof, otherwise, stfu!!

http://ELserve.net Jacob

Achems and Vlatko;
you have both directed verbally abusive words towards me without reading what I wrote. I wrote there is no proof for GOD, then you write. "give me proof for GOD!" does someone pay you to make mistakes or do you do it for free?
Valtko you made personal attacks on me telling me to get the bible out of here - if you have read my post you would have seen that I wrote, " don’t know what a convo about evolution has to do with ‘Jesus’, but since you brought it up, I feel compelled to address ..."
Looks like its me and Sam vs. you two. I like the odds.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

vlatko,
I have chosen neither and both. Nowhwere in this post have I claimed to believe anything. I have only posted what can be proven, i.e : the difference between what the 'bible' really says and what church people do. But since you just started attacking me without comprehending what I wrote, you dont know what I wrote. I agree with sam. school is glorified daycare. True wisdom does not come from human schools.
One question - why do you hate people who do not believe what you want them to?

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

Ok @Jacob my bad. I was too harsh. Sorry about that.

I've read everything you've posted and responded accordingly when I saw that you don't posses basic understanding of what theory and fact actually is.

Now read the comments.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

@Jacob,

We don't hate people. We are just frustrated when there is an obvious lack of intelligence amongst some. And of course when someone promotes religious views on a scientific documentary thread.

http://ELserve.net Jacob

btw,
'science' did not create radios or airplanes - indivuals did.
Individuals had ideas and they worked on them until they had something that worked. Is that science? Maybe. I was taught that two american brothers named wright flew the first airplane. They were not scientists. They were farmers. wait. are farmers scientists? wait my freinds from south america were taught that a man from brazil flew the first plane. Can we prove who created airplanes? Is there any scientific evidence to prove who flew first? I doubt it. The answer is in who you ask. Prove something. anything. you cant. and 'science' has not. so give your money and praise and worship to 'science'. But meanwhile your statements here today have been like the documentary; false, vague, unprovable.

Achems Razor

@Jacob:

Actually I made no mistakes, I said show proof for your Jesus, not God.
Unless you think that your Jesus is God.
And myself personally, have nothing to apologize for.

But am not really interested in discussing this further, all of that has already been discussed on this site on many docs, have a good day!

http://ELserve.net Jacob

vlatko,
i appreciate that. I am sure you are a fine person - i understand people can get frustrated. My hope is that sometime each of us will know the whole truth. Until then I am just going to try to love all of you, and not argue.

Samusakis

ROFL! This is so funny! It's as if tho everyone is talking in a different language here.

Thanks for the definitions Vlatko. Now, out of the fear of being completely misunderstood I shall not comment anymore.

Cheers! ^.^

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

Well... I agree on that @Samusakis. It’s as if everyone is talking in a different language here indeed.

Mike Zero

Quote from Eric Bapteste "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" see New Scientist "Uprooting Darwin's Tree" by Graham Lawton, January 24th 2009 p. 34.

Evolutionists seem to be similar to religionists: some strive to get to the truth whilst others repeat errors over and over and over and over again. This documentary presents the tree of life as indisputably perfect in its selection of common features. But like Plankton's (Spongebob)evil plan to steal Mr. Crab's formula they only cover every possibility from A to Y. The Z ofcourse is the Platypus.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

@Mike Zero,

I hate to repeat myself but here we go:

One common feature for facts, theories, and hypotheses in science is that they are all treated as fallible — the likelihood of error might vary greatly, but they are still regarded as something less than absolute truth.

By acknowledging the fallibility of humanity, science always remains open to new information, new discoveries, and new ideas.

If Eric Bapteste is right it is only a matter of testing, new info and time when the tree of life will fail and that will have nothing to do with religion but with scientific method. As @D-K pointed somewhere on the threads, science does not cheer for the outcome of its experiments, nor gathers followers.

There are and there always be different opinions amongst scientists. And that is what makes the beauty out of it. Who is right amongst them the time, tests, and the data will tell. So far Darwin is right.

These all independantly point to the conclusion that the Bible is wrong. What do they think? That there is some grand secret club, with professionals in every field of science, who's only purpose is to feed the public false information?

The Bible is not wrong. No book or mythology is wrong. It is a set of beliefs about the world. Mythology was never meant to be a statement of fact but of beliefs. Science is another matter entirely.

When you state someone's beliefs are wrong, then you are being unkind. If you state someone's science is wrong, then you need to come up with some facts or studies to prove otherwise. Two different things. No one can prove evolution is wrong. There is simply too much science, facts in evidence for that.

Some posters are letting their emotions run rampant. If someone wants to say evolution is wrong, then he or she has got some pretty steep explaining to do in the scientific way. There is no way that can be done. If it is on a religious ground, there is no way of debating that. This is not the forum for that. A church meeting would be a better place for that kind of discussion, not here.

http://www.drdino.com Austin

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer formerly $10,000, offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

http://zebrareader.blogspot.com/ Lori George Alexander

There has been many "standing offers" of these sort of things such as the death of Jesse James. One writer took one of them to court and proved the original story of Jesse James' death was accurate and the one offering the money had to pay. The court ruled that the one offering the reward had to pay. Whether the author was ever able to COLLECT is up to question. This sort of thing is in play here. Anyone can offer a certain amount of money to prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster but getting the individual to pay would be quite another matter.

A high school biology teacher should be able to collect the $250,000 but getting the individual above to pay is about the same as getting my cat to do tricks, and she does not do anything for anybody.

over the edge

@ austin you missed the conditions of proof required just some of them are
* NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
tell me what planet formation the formation of matter, how animals learned to reproduce and time and space have to do with evolution

Robert Allen

@Austin

I have $250,000 for someone who can prove that the five events you list took place without any of the pagan deities we know, love, worship and even at times believe in.

I don't have $250,000, but that doesn't matter, as I know that it is uncollectable. For, like you, I enumerate only some of the qualifications. I can always add others as I go along.

Try proving a positive for once. I can play the same game.

Scientist

Where is the science?
This video does not seem to present any facts, only the old evolution assumptions. It's title is misleading. Here are some facts and questions:
*Websters definition of "Science"- "Systematized knowledge based on observations..." (Observations are things seen, heard, smelled, felt).
None of the theories of evolution have ever been observed, therefore, evolution is a belief, not science. Evolution is a religion because it is based on beliefs, not science.
*First Law of Thermodynamics: "Matter cannot be created or destroyed - only changed." If this is science, then where did we come from. Life beginning from nothing, or a "big bang" is a religous view. Many have attempted to demonstrate/prove spontaneous generation but as of today there is no published science proving life can come from a bang.
*Fairy tale: A woman kisses a frog and it turns into a prince.
Evolution belief presented to usa school children as "science": Frogs turn into humans over million of years.
*"Universe" - From Latin: Uni=single. Verse=Spoken sentence.
If you live in a universe, you live in a single spoken sentence.

over the edge

@ scientist
no evolution has ever been observed? really so just 1 example of the countless will satisfy you? look up the e-coli evolution experiment. or if that doesn't satisfy you just search observed evolution there are many examples for you.second the big bang is not evolution so it is not proof for or against evolution. third please show me 1 scientist that claims that frogs turn into humans please. now i have a question for you please show me what you believe happened and the facts for your viewpoint.

Achems Razor

I realize it is fruitless to attempt to indoctrinate a superannuated cannine with innovative maneuvers.

But am also curious as to the various solicitations of hebetudinous postulations that @scientist so flagrantly spouts, and like @over the edge, would like to know his (@scientist) facts also, facts meaning-"empirical"

Robert Allen

@Achems Razor

1. I don't have a dog, so I don't know. However, during his advanced years, Stravinsky started experimenting with twelve-tone, a technique he had descried up till then.

2. Creationists and little intelligent design people have no qualms about resorting to bald-faced lies and blatant distortions to bolster what they perceive as the greater good, i.e., refutation by any means of Darwinism as they misunderstand it.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/about/ Vlatko

@Austin,

Get the hell out of here. Stick to Creation Science Evangelism (WTF is that?) website and buy their books. Make them richer with your ignorance. Also feed your kids with ignorance. Circumcise them when they're young and unaware of the surrounding and quickly impose the Evangelical or whatever make-believe system on them instead of independent rational thought.

@Scientist,

Get some real education. If not follow the footsteps of @Austin.

P.S. Damn I'm becoming very rude. Host shouldn't behave like that.

Robert Allen

@Vlatko, @Austin, @Scientist

Hosts should behave like that, for the intellectual vacuity made up of ignorance, mendacity and distortion exhibited by these evangelists, creationists, etc. commands no respect.

So be as rude to them as you like.

Achems Razor

Ha,Ha, almost choked on my coffee! good going Vlatko! (LOL)

over the edge

@vlatko i believe your lob (not to tell you what to do) is to keep people on topic honest and factual. so your response was in my opinion justified

SimonTheSorcerer

Actually host should not behave like that and saying it out loud does not make it right Vlatko.

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Achems Razor

I only wish I could of said that. It is what the religee"s deserve!
(ROTFLMAO) Brrr. got the religee's bent out of shape now, EH?

Religee's going to go crying to mommy now! Monsters?? oh I forgot, they believe in all their devils and demons! Things that go bump in the night, monsters in the closet, better check under the bed, (LOL)

john doe

The intro cover looks like 2 glasgow rainjurs supporters. with kinny milla as the wean.

truthseeker

I'm interested in the link between Psychology and evolution discussed in History of Disbelief doc. Can anyone direct me to some sources on this topic (morality stemming from brain function)? I enjoy reading the posts. Thank you for this site!

Nelson

Really very good. Thorough enough (more than most with bigger budgets) and with lots of god science. I'm baffled by some of the other comments, however. The narrator's voice was fine, the music was fine, the pace was rapid but not overwhelming. Very impressed.

eireannach666

LOL holy Reason! Dang Vlatko, didn't know you had it in you! That post made my week.

More back on topic however. A little pepper to stir into the pot

Here is something interesting that came across my lap I thought id share;
Throws more fun into our past.
Courtesy physorg and UA,Scotland

The findings -- published today in Nature -- could lead to new understandings of when complex life — from which humans eventually emerged - evolved on Earth.

Until now scientists had believed an important shift in the levels of oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere took place 800 million years ago.

This increase in oxygen marked the beginning of a move from simple organisms - which had inhabited the planet until this time - to the development of complex multi-cellular organisms which eventually led to life on Earth as we know it.

Chemical signatures of bacteria found in ancient rocks near Lochinver in the north-west Highlands of Scotland, has provided evidence that this key event in evolution actually took place some 400 million years earlier.

Professor in Geology at the University of Aberdeen, John Parnell led the study in collaboration with colleagues from the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow.

?
He said: “Our findings, which shift this key point in the evolution of life on Earth to a much earlier date than previously proven, will give impetus to further investigations into the timescale of the development of complex life, which followed this event.

“Our analysis of the chemical composition of rocks near Lochinver showed evidence that an important group of bacteria had existed within these rocks some 1.2 billion years ago.

“At this point in time the rocks would have been located at the bottom of a lake bed.

“Investigations revealed that these bacteria — which, on a basic level, use sulphur to obtain energy — were also using oxygen in a much more complex and efficient chemical reaction in order to generate their energy and survive.

“Evidence of this chemical reaction tells us that the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere were at this key point for evolution, at this much earlier stage in Earth’s history.”

Dr Adrian Boyce who runs a UK national analytical facility at the Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre said: “Our geochemical analyses have provided a clear signal that levels of oxygen in the atmosphere had increased to levels critical to the evolution of complex life - from which we ourselves emerge — much earlier than has been previously proven to date.

“This opens the door to a new understanding of the evolution of our planet’s atmosphere and the life it sustains.”

Professor Parnell added: “More in depth research would now need to be conducted in order to assess any potential knock- on effect our findings have for the timescale of the next stages of evolution, where life began to develop in more complex forms.”

What should be taught before evolution is how to comprehend the time it takes for things to change in nature. a book that helped me grasp this ..hhmm..elapsing of time is ..Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by C. Sagan...human beings can hardly imagine tens of thousands of years... let alone..hundreds of thousands or ..millions...tens of millions...hundreds of millions....billons of years???? I think it is here where one can get lost..or allow doubt to creep in even in the face of science..they can;t imagine it. evolution is everywhere in all facets of our existence.

yuri

How does a species evolve from one species to another (macro evolution)?
Now please, spare me the general talk about natural selection and gene mutations, and survival and reproduction - instead, I want a THOROUGH and DETAILED explanation of how, for example, an ancient plant or fungus of some sort from millions of years ago (before there were any type of sexually reproducing animals), may have evolved into, lets say, a fish... If it is neccessary, please include all species "linking" the two particular species, and please include concrete, SPECIFIC examples of how these changes may have gradually occurred over time.
If this is too extensive for you to write-out here, but you know of a great source for me to find this type of an explanation, please post the link!

Robert Allen

@Yuri

Two sources:

1. The 11-part documentary "Evolution" which is available on Top Documentary.

2. "The Ancestors' Story" by Richard Dawkins, an atheist if there ever was one, but head and shoulders over those who embrace the spiritual.

yuri

@Robert Allen
I could only find a couple of documentaries titled "Evolution" and neither were an eleven-part series. I did find one documentary, however, titled "Evolve," which was an eleven-part series, and I wonder if this is what you were referring to. Although I found it quite interesting, it was not what I was looking for. It vaguely explained the development of the eye through the evolution of several species in a chronological order, however, it did not consist of the details that I am interested in. Although I understand the the whole process of mutations and natural selection, no one has yet been able to explain to me EXACTLY how one distinct species can evolve into a completely new and distinct species (such as a plant evolving into a fish).

I wish I could sit down and have a conversation with Richard Dawkins personally, because it seems that no matter what I watch or read on evolution, I always come up with the SAME QUESTIONS that seem to never be answered to my satisfaction.

Robert Allen

@yuri

I apologize. There is a documentary entitled "Evolution" which is in 7 parts which is on this site. If I remember correctly, it shows, among other things, how sea creatures evolved into land creatures and vice versa.

From what I gather, you are seeking the mechanism by which one species evolves into others. If so, this would make an excellent documentary. Please let me know if I understand you correctly.

I,too, wish I could have a personal conversation with Dr. Dawkins, but he is on the other side of the ocean.

love

What happens when Humans and gorillas mate? The result is HIV.

rtm

I don't if this helps YURI but check out the doc entitled "What Darwin Never Knew" and if your really interested there is a lot of well updated information in the library and online covering the mechanics of evolutionary stages.

rtm

Also a good one is "Evolutions" which is on this site.

love

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921...

'You argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God

and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something

finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a

thought.'

'It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less

fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life

is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive

thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.'

'Now tell me, professor.. Do you teach your students that they

evolved from a monkey?'

'If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,

yes, of course I do.'

'Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?'

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes

where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

'Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work

and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor,

are you not teaching your opinion, sir?

Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?'

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the

commotion has subsided.

'To continue the point you were making earlier to the other

student, let me give you an example of what I mean.'

The student looks around the room.

'Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?'

The class breaks out into laughter.

'Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain,

felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?

No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established

rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that

you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.'

'So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?'

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student,

his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old

man answers.

'I Guess you'll have to take them on faith.'

'Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,'

the student continues.

'Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?'

Now uncertain, the professor responds,

'Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example

of man's inhumanity to man. It is in The multitude of crime and

violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing

else but evil.'

To this the student replied,

'Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is

simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word

that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not

create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have

God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there

is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.'

Lary Nine

@ Mr. Majestic~
Relax. Although it's true that many scientist are atheists, one can believe in God and hold evolution to be true. The catch is most people of ardent faith must understand evolution in order to accept it. Whereas most non-believers don't need to fully comprehend evolution to accept it. Ironic. Because it's the same flipped way for those same persons with the God thing...believers in God don't need to understand it fully to accept it and most non-believers must know everything they can about Theism before they reject it.

Gunnar Reiersen

Allmost everyone with any knowledge of biology at all, even some of the most die-hard Young Earth Creationists, acknowledge the fact of micro evolution (small adaptive changes that occure within a species). Nothing is clearer to me, however, that once you accept the fact of micro evolution, you have already lost the argument against macro evolution (speciation). This is because there is no rational basis for denying that small changes can be cumulative, and therefore no rational basis for denying that a long enough series of cumulative changes over a very long period of time can and will occasionally and inevitably result in changes that are large enough so that no reasonable person can deny that new species have emerged. Whether anyone likes it or not, the examples of ring species (such as the salamanders around California's Central Valley mentioned in the documentary) pretty much clinch that fact beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think that it is much of an exaggeration to say that every single instance of a living organism that is not identical to at least one of its parents is additional confirmatory evidence of evolution.

Robert Allen

@Gunnar Reiersen

Is there any reason to distinguish between macro and micro evolution?

Gunnar Reiersen

@Robert Allen

"Is there any reason to distinguish between macro and micro evolution?"

Not really, IMHO. That was pretty much what I was trying to imply. It is the creationist, religious fundamentalists who are mostly insisting that there is a significant distinction because if there is not, they haven't got a leg to stand on, as they know there is no way they can deny what they call micro evolution without revealing themselves to be either liars or ignorant fools.

Lary Nine

@Gunnar & Robert~
That's how speciation occurs through "modification" and "natural selection". Use the analogy of throwing the six dice attempting to throw all 6's. You can throw all 6 dice over and over again and it will take an ungainly, astronomical number of throws to approach the goal. But if you throw Yahtze-style, and each time you throw a 6 or 6s, you just rethrow the dice that remain, you get there rather quickly. That's how natural selection works. When a species branches, it's usually when the older form and the new variant move so far apart that they cannot reproduce...then you get a new species. Robert Allen is right about the micro/macro designations being a construct of Creationism.

Robert Allen

@Lary Nine

You've hit a particularly sensitive point. It irks me to no end when creationists resort to a false probabilistic model a la Demsky to refute evolution. Your model, however, is correct; it's like a rare type of slot machine I once played where after the first spin of all the wheels, you could immobilize one or several of them and take another spin. In general, nature retains the viable and continues to improve on it.

Micro vs. macro designations seem more like a difference without dstinction or vice versa. The more I think about it, they amount to the same thing which makes them meaningless.

Lary Nine

@Robert~
Of course. And that is how speciation occurs. Creationists have understandable human motives to promote their views but, as much as I feel empathy for them, Creationism and I.D. simply aren't 100% science.

Gunnar Reiersen

@Robert & Larry

I completely agree!

Veratyr

I love this doc! So much information. I like to sleep to it.

Lary Nine

@Veratyr~
What an amazing coincidence! I often use documentaries for this too. I put on the headphones and drift off...secure in the knowledge that I'll be internalizing subliminal extra credit!

wpsmithjr

I'm with Yuri on this one. I'm not really a religious person, per say. And I realize that species can evolve. That's why we have so many specialty breeds of dogs.

But...

They are all still dogs. No matter how many different breeds we create. I can't see how the new species are formed in evolution... unless there are intermediate species. I mean, I can see a salamander becoming a lizard as they are very much alike. Maybe the lizard is the salamander that evolved to live on land.

But...

Where is the Lalamander? Or the Slizard? Where is the in between species? And why are their still salamanders and lizards BOTH?

Where is ANY evidence of an "in between" species?? Or does a salamander suddenly give birth to a lizard one day??

I think there can be God and evolution... but you evolution people don't have any more evidence for your theory than the religious people do for theirs imho.

over the edge

we have lots of evidence of speciation. whales have remnants of hind legs,humans have a tail bone,flightless birds and so on. and then there is observed cases of speciation the one i usually quote is the long term e-coli evolution experiment. when you talk of in between species everything is transitional the human fossil record alone shows a gradual change. saying a salamander giving birth to a lizard doesn't exist has never been a claim of evolution, we and all life evolved over very long periods of time and an instant change is never claimed. even the Cambrian explosion which is cited as rapid evolution is over 70-80 million years. to expand on your statement of "why are their still salamanders and lizards BOTH" how a species can evolve into another species and the original still exist. if a population (group) gets isolated from the rest of the group and remains isolated then over time both groups will continue to evolve and adapt to their separate environments and eventually become two separate species. Darwins finches are a good example of this. now you are right that the theory of evolution cannot be proven 100% and religious creation cannot be disproved 100% but saying that evolution has no more evidence than religion is wrong. and by religion of the 28 000 000 gods that have been worshiped (actual best estimate) by default all but 1 have to be wrong which 1 are you claiming has as much evidence as science?

jonathan jackward

google this unified field of consciousness

jonathan jackward

google this unified field of consciousness

Sieben Stern

he had me at no nipples on the frogs XD

oddsrhuge

Now THATS funny!

grbr3

Just do a simple Google search and you will find several examples of transitional fossils that bridge the gap between species (I suggest reading Niel Shubin's "Your Inner Fish"). But I understand why you are so skeptical. A key to truly understanding evolution of species is to view all living species as transitions. Remember, evolution does not work towards a goal (of producing a certain species, for example).
As for comparing evidence for Evolution with evidence for religion: it depends what you mean by evidence and what you mean by religion. If we are talking about creation vs. evolution, and using scientific evidence (which is the only credible evidence one can use), then creation has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

avd420

There are still both because a whole species doesn't evolve. One indivdual does and mates and starts a new species with the species it evolved from staying around as well.

I hope that's simple enough for you.

Sabin Russell

I suggest you read a book instead of only watching documentaries.
There are many books on evolution with easy to read text and pictures! :)
animals just dont say hey! lets evolve!
ehhh maybe you need to stick to your dust and breath ideas........

Killin

I don't know of any proven physical evidence, but there is convincing documentary evidence. I recall reading at least one reference to the crucifixion of Jesus in Roman historical records - sorry cannot quote it offhand...and the dead sea scrolls and gnostic gospels are also historical records from various authors. So, yes, you should sit up and take notice. There are other written records dating from the time of Jesus which confirm his existence and support the story of his life and times.-Interpretation is a different matter of course. Another recent findng is a small metalic scroll sealed with seven seals, cool eh. There is plenty of archaeological evidence for the early Christian movement, and for the disciples, which adds to the historical credibility. The places and names of related figures are all accurate although dates are iffy.

This evolution documentary is very good, better than Dawkins documentary series I think; but still, new info is appearing all the time. So when science insists on the undisputed facts of an argument, I remain skeptical. There is always information left out, and dissenting theories that simply don't win the day. A lot of so called evidence is driven by competition for research funding and for tenure.

(I like the idea that life forms are connected in a big ecosystem of geneological and symbiotic relationships, and I find the literal creationist interpretation overly simplified and unnecessary. The literalists ignore the historical context of biblical scribes who often had to write metaphorically because of the the political risks involved. Also, science and metaphysics were not so much separate fields of inquiry as they are now, so nature, biology, cosmology etc were relative mysteries)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn should be mandatory reading by all scientists and science buffs.

Killin

How do we know that evolution does not work toward a goal? It seems to travel forward for humans, developing into increasingly more complex creatures, according to this documentary. Also, why is the first ancestor always a woman, the mother. Wouldn't you need a first father , two parents to start the new hominid family? Thirdly, natural selection seems to work if certain variables, like predators, remain stable, but since everthing is evolving including natural environment, how does natural selection unfold as illustrated in the video. Predators change, victims get smarter and have fewer accidents, environments change and so on. Also, there is a bit of new research coming out that physical and social experience affect genetic expression and transmission, previously thought not to be true, a Lamarkian idea. I have some references on this. How is human behaviour changing the rules of evolution via natural selection, since we often, nthough ot often enough, protect the most vulnerable members of our society.

avd420

I wonder who won that fight between Jesus and the fig tree.

Killin

Well, I think in the end they both died. But.. I think that was another metaphorical story about knowing a tree by its fruit. Interesting, because the fruit contain the seeds of the tree don't they? So the tree will die without the seeds to reproduce...hmmm maybe there is support for evolution somewhere in there. The more I read, the more it seems like the creationist perspective is really threatening evolutionary science, I did not realize that. I thought these were small fundamentalists cults with very little intellectual debth to their belief system. Do' creationists' recognize the physical/geographical evolution of the planet I wonder?

phdscholar

we don't even know how thoughts are made and people think they have scientific evidence of evolution because they watched a documentary. hah How can we have a serious theory of evolution when we dont even understand our own dna, time, the ocean, our brain, or even how matter stays together at the sub atomic level.

http://www.facebook.com/people/thom-delair/53703962 thom delair

I completely agree, because we don't have all of the answers about our dna, time, oceans, our brains, and how matter stays together we should throw the baby out with the bath water and disregard evolution as a pseudo-science. Besides there are much stronger explanations about development of life on Earth in the Bible.

avd420

Q: How do we know that evolution does not work toward a goal?

A: Because evolution is reactionary.

Humans are no more complex then we were while we were hunter gatherers, it's the society we have created which is becomming more complex. If you took a baby born ten thousand years ago and raised it in todays world it would be just as capable at living in todays society and doing it successfully as you or I.

avd420

No they believe the world to be around 6000 years old.

Killin

In the states there are many fundamentalist Christian groups, I think of them as cults. Mainstream Christians in the Anglican and Catholic , and some other churches, don't follow their methods of proselytising, nor their literal thinking. I don't understand those guys, and find them offensive and purile. I think their missionary zeal is getting them in trouble and it is a form of western colonization.
I have been wondering if they are an American phenomena, or arose in the States, I don't know. I am from Canada.

Killin

PS. I think its crazy that evolutionary science or any science is harrassed by or constrained by those Chirsitian groups. In that respect I can empathize with Dawkins and others pursuing pure scientific inqury.

I hope the Catholic crowd are not part of that, I suppose there is diversity though in the American church. I attended a mass in the States -New Mexico- once and was really shocked by the highly politicized and right wing sermon, it contained ideology not faith at all. So I think religion /faith does get appropriated by the state and by the culture to serve its ends. And its a danger to confront.

Killin

OK another thought..did you read David Plotz latest - Good Book. Its a funny and interesting first read of the bible , old testaments. Really interesting though. There is another secular analysis of the bible by Robert Wright, The Evolution of the Bible -I enjoyed some of the podcasts about the book and hope to read it soon. Was not impressed by The Moral Animal- though.

Regards

K

Killin

Here is a little evolution joke:

There are two scientists discussing a complicated math formula written on a chalk board . In the middle of the lengthy equation it reads “Then a miracle occurs”. One scientist says to the other, well “I think you should be more explicit here in step two” (Dennett, 1991, p.38).

….Time passes….

Now it is the year 2011 and the other scientist (let’s call her mother nature) is still sweating over her calculations. Suddenly she exclaims “Eureka! So she crosses out ‘a miracle’ and adds ‘random chance’.

avd420

Oh, I get it hahaha. It took me a while to realize the joke is actually on the person telling it lol. Because they think a miracle and radom chance are the same thing :P

Dustin Sheline

Ever heard of a duck-billed platypus? Quite a mix of traits from different species.

Dustin Sheline

Why is this even posted here? Why not put this on your popular creationist blog.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_AB72XZIIGTWC6E767WHTH6DHIM Kahina

Geez. Enough already.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=571226078 Dave LeBlanc

some kids can't be fed what you want because of evolution, they have to be fed some supplement or they will be malnourished, you can blame Pablum and women not breast feeding them from the start.

http://twitter.com/THEDUUUUUUDE THE DUDE

No-one will answer you when you suggest a fossil 195,000 years old is older than Luck which is millions of years old.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_M6F3RJVEWJ24QKMCHFNVK7ADVE Winston Smith

so many fascinating facts in here, -an excellent job!

Wooten

a fact is something scientifically observed through touch taste sight smell or hearing. This movie presents theories not facts.

http://twitter.com/DMaddArtworks Daniel Madden

A theory is a method that explains the facts, a scientific theory is not something that is waiting to be a FACT. The computer you used to make your comment, operates on a THEORY. A theory is developed through empirical data and evidence, facts are supported by the EVIDENCE. We can observe things indirectly, without having to SEE, TOUCH, HEAR, SMELL or TASTE. and then support those observations by making predictions and repeating them independently. This is how we can use the THEORY of electricity to build and use electronics.

http://twitter.com/DMaddArtworks Daniel Madden

Lets be clear about something here, science does NOT need a "missing link" to show evolution happens.

maleman112

Why do we allow argument...ignore them

http://twitter.com/DMaddArtworks Daniel Madden

Why would you try and STOP people from making an argument? it is the means by which ideas can be tested and solutions found, and people may find some common ground, it's a healthy thing to do; don't stop making arguments.

Craigzz

Before the chicken or the egg, there was something else, and, if you want to follow it back, no doubt there's a reptilian of some sort, and before that, an egg laying fish.
The big question is, how do you link that fish and reptile to modern chickens ? It's impossible, the missing link could be staring you in the face and you would never make the connection, evolution is very subtle, inextricably linked to surroundings, of which no evidence may remain.
There has to be a missing link, but what if there is only one, one genetic abnormality, or just a few generations, chances are it will never be found, but seashells represent the best chances of finding and showing a missing link, and therefore how evolution works.

ProudinUS

Man, what the f**k are all of you sniffin'!?....windex!?? ....paint remover!...
white-out!

http://twitter.com/DMaddArtworks Daniel Madden

Okay, I'm going to say this again; science does NOT need a MISSING LINK to show evolution happens. Medical research uses evolution to make drugs, fight viruses. Just like we use the THEORY of electricity to make electronics, we use the theory of evolution for the medical field, if evolution did not happen, these things would NOT work. Evolution happens, there is more then enough evidence to show it happens with out EVER having a "missing link"

http://twitter.com/DMaddArtworks Daniel Madden

Do you have a position to state ProundUS? or are you here to say BOTH sides are sniffing windex? please tell me you have more constructive to offer then childish insults.

ProudinUS

How are you Daniel ? What would you like to discuss ? I personally, would like to discuss the beliefs of a God. How about yourself?
As for the childish insults I have left them long ago. Shall we begin with why I know there's a God?

over the edge

@ProudinUS
hey i personally don't care why you know there is a god. but i am really interested in any proof you have for a god. and by proof i mean something testable, tangible and not some feeling or coincidence .

http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

i would LOVE to hear how you KNOW there is a god.

i really really cant wait.

http://www.topdocumentaryfilms.com Epicurus

so i guess you dont want to discuss this particular topic?

maleman112

Because there is no argument, and we are not the ones to make this debate correct, all we do is influence politics in situations of lack of understanding and make stupid agenda....now there is a real debate

http://twitter.com/Organic_method Solon Johnson

When did we get so sceptical? I wish there was something I believed in and I have so much respect for anyone that does

Out_Of Africa

Hi Wooten... There are many interesting sites where you can see how fallible the human mind is. It's a truly fascinating area to look at... either for fun or proper study. Just think of 'Optical Illusions', or people who have suffered limb loss and experience 'Phantom Limbs'. Research shows a connection between language development and colour perception. Who'd have guessed just relying n their senses that if you had a twin and they were nurtured in a culture with no word for, say, 'green' they'd be hard pressed to actually see the same shades of green as you who has been bought up speaking English and thus has a word for 'green'. Please do a quick search for the McGurk effect on YouTube for an odd way the brain tricks itself. Then try and track down the BBC Horizon documentary on seeing colour!. It's amazing!

The point is the brain's senses, (n.b. I'm surprised you missed out one of the most important... proprioception), are very easily duped and can't ever be considered as showing us 'fact', (n.b. Yesterday I read an article on the law that suggested that 3 out of 4 of the miscarriages of justice in the world, where people are wrongfully imprisoned, are influenced by by misidentification... where people literally swear on oath the 'fact' that they saw the accused at the scene of a crime!).

Anyway... I'm surprised by your comment on the documentary. Did you watch it?

I watched it, and then showed it to my 10yr old daughter as it was very thorough and not too technical and easily followed by her... However, the important point was they were thorough and demonstrated how unbiased experiment, and inter-disciplinary analysis, has reached certain cross-supporting conclusions. Thus the points made can safely be called 'facts'... whereas Human 'gut-feel' based on is senses is simply why people thought the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and why the ill-informed still interpret their experiences as 'proof' of one or other of the many deities still claimed to 'exist'.

madscirat

Despite enjoying this video and learning quite a bit I must warn that nothing good can come of science proselytizing people. That is the means by which religion reproduces and if science does the same then science may become just another church with it's own orthodox priesthood. Let people free themselves from dogmas at their own pace and let religion give default beliefs and ethics to people not ready to think on their own as it has always done. Trying to wrench religion away from them is analogous to pulling the training wheels off a child's bike before they are ready. The results in history, seen in the French, Spanish and Russian Revolutions, have always been bloody for the masses, deprived of religion, always devolve (no pun intended) into a mob.

sineroth mike

i hate to like yer comment but unfortunatly i do ....devolve hehe but actually isent there a darwinian(?) law(theory) against devoltion?....just asking cause i watched a doc on here from a guy who talked really fast and had lotsa great info and i vaugly recall(yeah i wasdrunk) some darwinian(?) laws(thoery''s)about that.... hehe sorry for all the ...'s i liked yer comment is all i meant to say...also (doh sorry more ...'s prolly enroute) iread a bookthat said yer species(huamans)need religion for to keep yer morals and such ....well like u said eitherway im gonna hit enter and watch this show...hehe gnite (really though i liked yer comment its what i always wanted to convey but instead threw stuff at people)

That comment is so crazy and screwed up that I don't even know how to begin to point out all of the problems, errors, and fallacies in it.

MikkiDean

Interesting and enjoyable. However much of this is based on speculation and is at present not provable. Logic is so easily distorted by perspective. Our reasoning to understand our world is always based on our view of the world. As our view changes so does our logic. Makes one wonder if there really is "logic" or maybe logic is just the latest "made up" answer to what we think we see. One thing about the uniformed theory of common descent that disturbs me - it suggest that there is only one possible way that life could have formed. I fear that plays into the hands of the creationist. Just my opinion. I liked it better when it was countless, diversity of life.

jackmax

Mate,

On what part of the theory of evolution is speculation, when most biologists agree, that evolution is fact it's just the mechanisms of evolution that are considered theories?

What part of evolution is not provable?

Elliott

Isn't the fundamental law: "Life always comes from preexisting life"
In order for a cell to survive, we know that at least 3 different types of complex molecules must work together- DNA, RNA and proteins.
Not to go too deep, but some believe that the origin of life was 'proteins firsts'. So lets look at how proteins work. The average protein in a simple cell contains 200 amino acids. Within those cells are thousands of different types of proteins. The probability that one protein containing 100 amino acids could somehow "randomly get together" and say form the earth has been calculated to be 1 in million billion.
Also, we know that RNA is required to make proteins. So what is the likelihood that both of them appear together at the same place and time, THEN, to cooperate to form a self- replicating/sustaining life form?
That is what we are talking about with Evolution. Evolution beats- not just the odds, but Astronomically low odds.
We talk about logic in relation to evolution. But how is it logical to conclude that a "cell" came about by a) beating insurmountable odds, b) non-living chemicals.

over the edge

please show me where the theory of evolution has anything to do with the origins of life.

Miguel Serna

This documentary is so s*upid. Evolution is a theory! It is NOT truth. But, it became so popular because it gave people an excuse to explain their existence apart from God. And not feel guilty of their sin. Evolution and scientist are only explaining what already exist. Where did the molecules and proteins come from? Out of nothing? And then they throw a millions years into everything to throw people off and confuse them even more. To make themselves look really smart. You need way more faith to believe in Evolution, than in all powerful, all knowing God!! Evolution is a complete JOKE!!!

over the edge

i wonder if you can answer a few questions?
-"Evolution is a theory! It is NOT truth." are you claiming theories are not true? please explain what you think a scientific theory is?
- how do you know why the theory became popular? why do the majority of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution regardless of their religious beliefs?
- where molecules and proteins come from is not relevant to evolution. why is "i do not know (yet) " not a valid answer?
- as for your god. please explain the specific god you are referring to?
- i will give you a challenge. you give me all your demonstrable evidence for your god and i will do the same for evolution. please no analogies, testimonials or claims that cannot be tested and we will see who needs faith. what do you say?

Achems_Razor

"And not feel guilty of their sin"? What sin? What guilt? for not believing in YOUR gods? you are the one who should feel guilty of perpetrating the fairy book fallacy/and god of the gaps, of your bronze age myths and holding back the progress of science as most religee's are wont to do.

Funny religee's.

Miguel Serna

Present your argument! I'll be waiting!!

docoman

So that's your side... nothing? He said give yours, then he'll give his.
You have... nothing? Why am I not surprised.

Straight up, you make the usual laymen mistake of what a theory is in science. Do yourself a favor and read and learn something besides your book of BS, we've learned a lot since that nonsense was written.

By the way, your 'confessionals' and asking your make-believe entity for forgiveness is your way of not feeling guilty for your wrongs.. you should try asking those you wronged for forgiveness (the only ones that can forgive you) , and try to right your wrongs instead of skipping your responsibility and asking some imaginary friend to cover it for you. You're the one that tries to elude your guilt and skip the reality of the here and now.

over the edge

sure

- the long term e-coli experiment. where it has been (and continues to be) observed repeated and fully documented for one species to evolve into another species.

- ring species. where organisms
can successfully breed with their neighboring inhabitants but cannot at the end because they have become too genetically different to produce viable offspring,

- vestigial organs. where the organ (or
structure) has lost its functionality or has been re-purposed while containing many of the traits of the original structure. while not being the most efficient way to perform the new function it does fit with the theory of evolution, but if a "designer" was working from scratch it is only proof of an incompetent designer.

- the DNA evidence that fully supports evolution.

that should be enough for now. i will provide links if needed but please look for yourself first. everything i have provided is completely
repeatable,testable and verifiable please provide me with the same for your counter argument. your turn to provide your evidence for the " all powerful, all knowing God" and please let me know of the 28 000 000 gods
what one you are referring to. thanks

over the edge

i agree but i gave mine anyway ( a fraction of mine ). i am fine with going first even if that wasn't the deal i proposed. i guess he "interpreted" my challenge differently to suit his preconceived goals. as long as he presents his i am fine

over the edge

speaking of "guilt" and "forgiveness". you have hit on my tripping point of god(s) if they exist. and that is the biggest "if" i have ever spouted. if a person (especially someone i care about) wronged me and sincerely asked me to forgive them and i did. but they did not ask an invisible mass murderer to forgive them as well they will burn forever. but a believer still thinks they will have eternal bliss in heaven. what kind of a person could be blissful knowing people they care about are being tortured? if i had to know people i loved were being treated that way for something I forgave them for that would be my h*ll.

docoman

I agree mate. That is part of why I can also call myself an anti-theist. If by some 'miracle' one of the 28 000 000 proposed gods were correct, I don't want to know that pr1ck.

I love one of Jim Jefferies clips about that. (I'm capped at the moment, can't look it up to link it).
He says something along the lines of 'what is at heaven, your dead relatives. Ever spent a weekend at your grandparents...it's Fing Sh1t! It's eternal, which means you'll get used to it, and be Fing bored. I'd be dead an hour, and start thinking 'I wish all my friends would die'...

Makes me lol every time. :)

over the edge

lol i have seen it. as well as almost everything else of his. here is a quote from another comedian (not one of my favorites but a good quote)

When I was a kid I
used to pray every night for a new bike. Then I realized that The Lord
doesn't work that way, so I stole one and asked him to forgive me. Emo Phillips

docoman

Lols! He's got a few good ones, thanks! I liked " A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing."

Haha, a few years ago when I had some 'anger management issues', I introduced my then computer to my axe out the back yard... an expensive few minutes, but well worth it, I built myself a better one. :)
Edit- another example of evolution..I learned a lesson in self control, and also 'evolved' my computer knowledge and system. A mate of mine cracked it at me, said he would've brought it from me, I said you still can if you want. :)

Miguel Serna

Where did the ring species come from?
Where did the vestigial organs come from? And DO NOT go around the questions. Just answer them.

over the edge

i haven't avoided any questions so far. you on the other hand have answered absolutely none of mine. as for "Where did the ring species come from?" could you please be more specific as the answer could take a few words or miles of text without specifics i do not know what you are asking. typical religious debating skills though. you make multiple initial claims then ask others for proof without ever backing up your claims. did you not agree to my challenge? do you plan on answering any of my outstanding questions?

if you are asking where/how life originated that has nothing to do with evolution. and i already answered that in my first response to you. i will not answer any more of your questions until you answer mine. doesn't that seem fair to you?

Miguel Serna

Typical Evolution debating skills. You have so contradicted yourself. I asked you to present your argument and you did. You mentioned (the long term e-coli experiment) and you also mentioned ring species and vestigial organs. And I asked you a simple question? To answer where ring species and vestigial organs come from? And you couldn't answer the question. And not only did you not answer the question you go around it into your evolution jiberish! Answer the question!! Even if it takes a few words or a mile of text. Answer it!

Oh! And for your information the origins of life, has EVERYTHING to with evolution. But, this is what you people do is suck people in to your shallow arguments. But, until you answer my question. You have NO argument. That's why you keep asking me to answer your questions. That's only way you people feel smart. You people are too funny! This is what you people do! What a waste of money for college! This is what our universities are producing? Evolution student monkeys!! Until you answer my question you will always be an evolution monkey!! Argument lost!!

over the edge

where have i contradicted myself? you state " for your information the origins of life, has EVERYTHING to with evolution." lol. anybody with a basic understanding of science knows that evolutionary theory concerns itself with change over time through mutations and natural selection. ABIOGENESIS is the theory that is concerned with the origins of life.
okay ring species come from a common ancestor. without specifics i cannot answer any further. as for vestigial organs they are the repurposing or the gradual elimination of previous structures that are no longer used for their original purpose. again without specifics i cannot answer further.
again you made the initial claims and still are refusing to or are unable to back them up. for the third time i will ask. do you agree with my initial challenge? do you plan on answering any questions? you end your post with "Argument lost!!" and that is sad. i comment here to maybe learn something from others or maybe teach someone else. you on the other hand seem more concerned with winning. well i hope someday you win the internet. i on the other hand will have to settle for attempting to learn something.

Achems_Razor

Sorry, the burden of proof lays in your court, prove your claims, prove your invisible friends/deities exist, we do not have to prove anything. And yes, humans are apes, human apes that is, we just came swinging down from the trees only a short while ago through the process of evolution, and sorry to say you are a religious monkey.

Funny religee's!

Michael Jay Burns

Mr. Serna, your method of supporting your supernatural belief system is sometimes called "the god of the gaps" It looks for things that are not explained and seizes on them as proof of their favorite deity. As science advances the gaps become smaller and the deists lose more and more of their mystery places.
I suggest that you reexamine a system of belief than can only live in ignorance.

$54737469

Sorry dude, but sin, shame, guilt and fear through religion is really out of vogue. I'll stick with scientific facts and sleep soundly in the process.

Kip Keino

Rather good, but a bit too apologetic. Science is strong because it can be challenged. Religious attitudes towards scientific topics are often flawed and feeble, because they're afraid of, and they stifle real scientific challenges. When has a religious organization ever done any real scientific research? The stats near the latter part of the video are compelling and well presented.

Rough McHewn

Whether evolution is a joke or not, it is believable because of the evidence, whereas your God, or any god for that matter is a real cop-out: It exists only because you and any number of people say so. There is no evidence that a god exists: NONE. Except as in your own argument "Out of nothing".

Rough McHewn

"Oh! And for your information the origins of life, has EVERYTHING to with evolution."
There are an awful lot of people that would disagree with that statement, me being one of them.
Being "created", as you would suggest, takes a leap of faith greater than I am willing to take: whereas "I don't know" is a much more satisfying answer, when in fact you nor I, nor anyone else knows, it becomes the truthful answer.

Miguel Serna

You Evolution monkeys, are too funny! Evolution is believable? Because of evidence? What evidence? Evolution only explains matter that already exist!! You people are dumber than a door!

over the edge

you ask "What evidence?" how about DNA evidence, or vestigial organs maybe fossil evidence might interest you, better yet how about an observed fully documented and repeated demonstration of one species evolving into another. would any of those interest you?
you go on to state "Evolution only explains matter that already exist!" correct. and your point is? just because one field of science isn't fully explained does not mean that another field is the same.
here are some questions for you. first off please explain your alternative (with evidence please) for the observed changes in organisms? how did life get so diverse in your opinion? how long has life been on earth? and finally what do you say to a believer in god who also understands and accepts evolution? as it is not an "excuse to explain their existence apart from God."?
edit: i just realized we have had this discussion before. i now do not expect any kind of answer from you or anything that borders on an on topic discussion. reply if you wish but i do not expect much from this interaction with you

Achems_Razor

I see that you, the religious monkey, are still (swinging) around trying to tell us that YOUR invisible friend in the sky spoke and the universe came to be.

Funny religee's

Rough McHewn

For all the good it will do, I would suggest that you view the film, as it is full of evidence. They call them facts. I won't waste my time drawing you a picture.
If in fact you have already watched it, I would suggest you NOT watch it again, as the film "Facts Of Evolution" has zipped way over your head, and I would have to recommend Buggs Bunny and possibly the Road Runner.
In case you missed it, the title of the film was "Facts Of Evolution" and not why is the universe here. That is a completely different movie. And for it, my "Poof" and here it is, is every bit as plausible as your "Poof" and here it is.
In essence, that "Poof" is the substance of your argument. Science hasn't done any better than that on the origins life, but considerably better on the mass of the universe.

Craig Ellis Raboteau

When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change.

Miguel serna

Typical Evolution debating skills. To mock and make fun of other peoples arguments. You are so shallow. That "poof" that your talking about is what makes Evolution NOT provable! That's the field of Science that you will never be able to explain to people and never be able to prove. Scientist can only explain what already exist, what God has already created and designed!

Until you prove to me a MONKEY evolving into a HUMAN BEING !!! Your theory is fake and unable to be proven! And I know you will have a million lies and excuses on why is not happening anymore! What a waste of money for your weak education!!

Jbreze

The word "fact" by anybody on either side is ridiculous in regards to this movie. There is zero credits, zero sources and hard to take any of this at it's word. I believe I saw one of the fossils shown in regards to the bird-dinosaur transition theory that was later determined to be an absolute hoax and nothing more than 5 different dinosaurs glued together. I may as well start quoting video's from intelligentdesign.org which has about as much credibility as this.

It's a serious shame that those with the means disregard finding the truth in a disgraceful effort to prove their argument. The entire point of finding our origins has been lost to the point of proving a theory from 150 years ago or a chapter from a book 2000 years ago.

Both sides and people from both sides have lost their integrity due to the fact that they have narrowed their focus to their belief instead of opening the possibility to the truth. When it's all said and done we know nothing and the 250,000 fossils gathered over 150 years can never explain what has happened over 4.5 billion years. Human bias and arrogance believes we are smarter than whatever has happened but time will show we aren't. We damn sure ain't going to find the answers in a few pages of the bible either.

Bong

I'll start believing in god when they find some god fossils bones, until then I'll stick to science.

riss le zombi

Religion saw the world as flat and the earth as the center of our solar system until science discovered otherwise (actually you religious nut's locked that particular scientist in his house after his discovery until he died) FACT- religion has been proven wrong time and time again by science, so much so that it's overdue for religious nuts to get a grip and move on. The garden of eden did not exist and if it did well then we were created by aliens from another planet! Mary had IV fertalisation from those aliens possibly splicing our genes with alien genes! EVEN THAT is even more believable than the creation theory! Evolution is a FACT as is the possibility that alien life exists.... and to all you poor religious people who have been brainwashed by m*rons ...sin was a concept created by HUMANS to make living life a "nicer experience"

riss le zombi

lol good one.

riss le zombi

take the trees away from monkeys,,,add meat to our diet poof a human being in the making!

ann

Evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life, but with how species change over time to be better fit to their environment

(Your a Joke :) )

martay

To not believe in the facts of evolution is to declare yourself insane , argument with the god squad is pointless as they are intent in believing the written words of nomads over centuries

Gord Adams

I love science, but this documentary doesn't do much to advance the cause. It is poorly organized, and the illustrations are so bad that at times I think a 6th grader could have done better. What the hell was that scene showing the scientific institutions that support evolution on some kind of snot landscape of shadowed hills with 3D text boxes? It's like they let the amateur computer graphics person run the show.

The tree of life was hard to read, and the narration was horrible, often making pointless statements like, "there are many examples of --------------, but here we will give just a couple." I could easily imagine creationists feeling triumphant at that. I only managed to watch for about 20 minutes.

Abel brown

At the beginning the narrator says "we will not talk of intelligent design, a worthy topic, but not for science" that's when I shut it off.
Science does not answer everything, how did language evolve? Is morality real? We all know molesting children is wrong.. Things like this.
Science has many answers but Has just as many theory's. So to continue working things out scientifically you must have faith in the theories you are trying to prove. Science is a theory, religion is also a theory.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.-Albert Einstein

over the edge

could you please define what you think a scientific theory is?

Achems_Razor

"religion is also a theory"??

Funny religee's.

Noel Johnson

why do you people always start arguing about relegion when the topic is science? this video was not about wether god is real or not, and he said that in the beginning. This video is ment for non-relegious people! scientists dont interupt our worships to start arguing and disagreeing with us, so dont get mad when others enjoy knowledge based on science.

I am relegious, but its not my job to start arguing with strangers on the internet just because it contains articles thats clearly not ment for me. Why do you argue anyway? God doesnt become less or moore real if you argue with non-beleivers, and they wont believe in god either. So why bother? are we supposed to be provoced of the fact that they are disagreeing with us? or is it because you dont want people to go to hell? we cant prevent people from beleiving what they believe, nether can they. And its a sin to predict if people goes to hell or not, its up to god to descide that.

(And by the way, science is NOT a theory, it HAS theries in it. its the best answears we have so far in many things. not everything but many things. It has its weaknesses, it cant always explain the origins of everything, but it shoore can explain the present in a better way than the bible.)

something is pulling us down to the ground, scientist called it gravity. elements have certain abilities, scientist called it cemical reactions. we saw lights in the skyes at nigth, scientist called it stars, and later they built machines that took us beyond the sky and PROVED that space existed. they PROVED that our planets are spinnign around the sun in a solar system and they have PROVED that everybody have DNA, and ddeformed people has a few differences in theyr DNA than us. so thats the evidence that something that physically exist desides what we look like. scientist has called it DNA and thats a fact. remains of humans that lived a 1000 years ago are all shorter that us, so there you have the evidence that spescies changes. even HUMANS.

stop wining about our relegion when we have lost theese discustions. the fact that there are things science cant prove is not an evidence that scientist are wrong about everything. you all embarres me... and one last thing: Things can be explained scientifically, but god still created it.

Noel Johnson

"Evolution and scientist are only explaining what already exist. Where did the molecules and proteins come from?"

well... you admit that scientists explains everything that exists. But just because they cant explain where it all come from, why are they necessarily wrong about EVERYTHING they say? And can we christians explain how god made it appear? they say big bang, we say god. its the same thing, suddenly the universe just started to exist. Thats where the molecules and proteins comes from.

your estatement is just filled with anger and lacks basic logic... bible-logic too

Noel Johnson

wtf? they have never said anything about an induvidial monkey evolving into a human? its not happending anymore because it never happened... not even according to them. your arguments are based on your misunderstandings

yossarian

The tone and delivery were nauseating, I felt like I was watching some cult video for scientology. Why do people stylise scientific information? To allow for a lazy reception? Scientific information is exciting if you make sense of it and apply, but otherwise its inescapably boring. It can be made exciting vicariously through. Another's attitude but it cannot be packaged like say a spy documentary can.